Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Source: hXttp://news.yahoo.coXm/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil_9



I find this quite interesting. Do you think that the French government is making a good decision or a poor one? Is this a breach of ethics or does it reinforce them? What impact do you think this will have on the European country with the largest Muslim community?

Discuss!

Rioting, attacks and explosions are soon to follow.

Originally posted by Level 99
Source: hXttp://news.yahoo.coXm/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil_9



I find this quite interesting. Do you think that the French government is making a good decision or a poor one? Is this a breach of ethics or does it reinforce them? What impact do you think this will have on the European country with the largest Muslim community?

Discuss!

It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.

Na, with the exceptions of health codes (eg the Muslim woman in the pool incident), who really ****ing cares if some women want to cover their faces? It's not breaking any decdency laws, like walking around with your genitals showing.

Would the same sentiment be held if France's parliament decides that certain hairstyles or colors aren't French compatible?

Ridiculous, people should be able to wear whatever clothing they want.

I don't see the problem

Islam is fundamentally different from everything else that people have freedoms regarding, and it is inherently anti-freedom, so it really doesn't matter if people's rights are abused. you want freedom? easy, don't be a Muslim, how is that hard. frankly, if you want to worship Allah, go to Saudi Arabia

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see the problem

Islam is fundamentally different from everything else that people have freedoms regarding, and it is inherently anti-freedom, so it really doesn't matter if people's rights are abused. you want freedom? easy, don't be a Muslim, how is that hard. frankly, if you want to worship Allah, go to Saudi Arabia
You best be trolling. You're mister anarchist and now you say stuff like this? "You want freedom, well then give up your religion or else you don't get any." Pfft. What a joke.

Dr. anarchist to you

edit: also, I've always thought I wore my sympathies for the plight of the modern Muslim more on my sleeves than my anarchy. huh

Well done France, i hope we follow soon. Sometimes the opressed are too scared to take these steps by themselves, sometimes you must GIVE people freedom if it's something they can't achieve on there own. To all the muslim women who would be against this decision i say this. Ignorance is bliss, you've been born into opression, into a socioty where opression is the norm, this dosn't make it ****ing right, this Hijab ban is a small but significant step to showing you the light you never knew existed. Afterall what do the men in Islam have to sacrifice? Not a goddamn thing.

they aren't allowed to have sex or masturbate, and are themselves victims of stringent rules regarding gender norms, though not so much as the women. I'll expand if you would like

Originally posted by Juk3n
Well done France, i hope we follow soon. Sometimes the opressed are too scared to take these steps by themselves, sometimes you must GIVE people freedom if it's something they can't achieve on there own. To all the muslim women who would be against this decision i say this. Ignorance is bliss, you've been born into opression, into a socioty where opression is the norm, this dosn't make it ****ing right, this Hijab ban is a small but significant step to showing you the light you never knew existed. Afterall what do the men in Islam have to sacrifice? Not a goddamn thing.
Yeah, and then we can get to work on dropping that pesky little "freedom of religion" thing.

i dont know how to feel... a part of me that loves freedom the american beer drinker says down with parliament!! but the other part says its their country respect their law..

all i know i wouldnt tolerate it in my country... but, i also know in some states its illegal to wear face coverings.. although i dont think it was placed to single out specific ppl but to stop robberies

As far as I can tell, this is as opposed to Article 1 of the French constitution as it would be to the 1st Amendment of the American one...

I'm not reading that article, but didn't they want this done because of security reasons?

Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as I can tell, this is as opposed to Article 1 of the French constitution as it would be to the 1st Amendment of the American one...

the problem is, unlike the Canadian or American constitutions, the French has provisions for the enforcement of French culture. even if we ignore the public safety thing, it would probably be legal for them to enforce this as part of francophonizing immigrants

Originally posted by inimalist
the problem is, unlike the Canadian or American constitutions, the French has provisions for the enforcement of French culture. even if we ignore the public safety thing, it would probably be legal for them to enforce this as part of francophonizing immigrants
Yeah. From what I can tell it's not nearly as common of a practice in France to take legislation to court as it is in the US either.

If this were in the US, as much as I loath fundamentalist Islam i'd definitely fight against this.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Well done France, i hope we follow soon. Sometimes the opressed are too scared to take these steps by themselves, sometimes you must GIVE people freedom if it's something they can't achieve on there own. To all the muslim women who would be against this decision i say this. Ignorance is bliss, you've been born into opression, into a socioty where opression is the norm, this dosn't make it ****ing right, this Hijab ban is a small but significant step to showing you the light you never knew existed. Afterall what do the men in Islam have to sacrifice? Not a goddamn thing.

It's true, what you said, if we ignore that France isn't giving Muslims freedom, it's imposing restrictions.

As the laws were before, Muslim women could wear a veil or they could not; now they're being told, "you can't."

just for interest sake, were French laws so lax that the police couldn't before have stopped and questioned someone who appeared to be covering their face for criminal or suspicious reasons? if we assume the law is for public safety, as opposed to cultural control, could I have previously walked around France in a baliclava doing suspicious things without fear that the police might stop meand ask what I'm doing?

there ya go! that'll show them radical muslims who's the boss and stop 'dem terror attacks for sure!

I'd have to disagree with this new law being passed because it is a breach of freedom and expression. Unfortunately, this issue is so touchy because some of these women are forced into the religion and suffer heavy consequences for going against it.

France: women clad in veils are not our idea of feminine equality. rail thin coke addicted models who attempt to look just barely legal, however, are completely reasonable and pose no issue to female identity.

the lesson is obviously then that Muslim men need to do more to physically objectify women like we do in the west, rather than this heathen spiritual objectification. who cares if it is a symbol of holy purity to them, I wants my titties

This reminds me of a news story a friend emailed me a while back:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2642956/Tesco-supermarket-bans-Jedi-Knight-for-wearing-hood.html

veils are offensive to me simply because the majority of women wearing them are doing it because theyve been told they must. If they were not told about veils until the age of say..18 (considered an adult) and could make their own choice, id be all for it, the veil in most islamic socioties does not represent a step towards equality and i don't care what anyone says. Freedom has to be regulated, i know thats a kinda hypocritical but it does. The French government have rights too don't they? Next step? ban all religious teachings until the age of 18. Let people make up there own minds, dont indoctrinate them at age 3 with hellfire speech.

Originally posted by Juk3n
veils are offensive to me simply because the majority of women wearing them are doing it because theyve been told they must. If they were not told about veils until the age of say..18 (considered an adult) and could make their own choice, id be all for it, the veil in most islamic socioties does not represent a step towards equality and i don't care what anyone says.
Generalizations are fun, especially when used in ways that will F people not of that category over.

Originally posted by Juk3n
veils are offensive to me simply because the majority of women wearing them are doing it because theyve been told they must

I suppose clothing in general must offend you then.

Originally posted by Juk3n
veils are offensive to me simply because the majority of women wearing them are doing it because theyve been told they must. If they were not told about veils until the age of say..18 (considered an adult) and could make their own choice, id be all for it, the veil in most islamic socioties does not represent a step towards equality and i don't care what anyone says. Freedom has to be regulated, i know thats a kinda hypocritical but it does. The French government have rights too don't they? Next step? ban all religious teachings until the age of 18. Let people make up there own minds, dont indoctrinate them at age 3 with hellfire speech. They do it because they are educated to do it just like you wear clothes because you were educated to do it. It is considered obscene - quite idiotically in my opinion - and criminal to walk arround naked in almost every society in the world now, but that is not viewed as opression. Believe ir or not, even if the veil and maybe even the burkha were no longer mandatory and not using it carried no perspective of sanctions, the majority of the women from the sects and cultures that traditionally wear it would keep wearing it. It is simply ingrained in their culture.

Furthermore, by prohibiting the use of the veil, the french government is actually forcing them to go against what most actually believe to be proper behavior and violate their interpretations of religious comandments. So it is violating their right to freedom of conscience and religion while claiming to be protecting those rights. The same crap that can be seen in official speech legitimizing all colonization and compulsory religious conversion throughout history - it is for the sake of trhe ones we opress, we are saving them from their own damned stupidity by making them more like us.

This bullshit law has as much legitimacy as forcing them to eat pork because its the favourite diet in france and a matter of cultural identity they must adhere to if they want to live in the country.

Originally posted by 753
they must adhere to if they want to live in the country.

why should it be any other way? It's up to the French government to decide how they want French citizens to behave is it not? I hear Saudi Arabia is great all year around, with the added bonus of being BEATEN into wearing a Burqa, sounds like a mussies dream place huh? YEEAAAHH BOOOOII.

Originally posted by Juk3n
veils are offensive to me simply because the majority of women wearing them are doing it because theyve been told they must. If they were not told about veils until the age of say..18 (considered an adult) and could make their own choice, id be all for it, the veil in most islamic socioties does not represent a step towards equality and i don't care what anyone says. Freedom has to be regulated, i know thats a kinda hypocritical but it does. The French government have rights too don't they? Next step? ban all religious teachings until the age of 18. Let people make up there own minds, dont indoctrinate them at age 3 with hellfire speech.

what evidence do you have to suggest that most veiled French women actually do so because of force?

as a follow up, how does banning the veil actually empower these women against oppressive patriarchs.

Originally posted by Juk3n
why should it be any other way? It's up to the French government to decide how they want French citizens to behave is it not?

No, it's not.

I hear Saudi Arabia is great all year around, with the added bonus of being BEATEN into wearing a Burqa, sounds like a mussies dream place huh? YEEAAAHH BOOOOII.

Is there a point somewhere in here?

Originally posted by inimalist


as a follow up, how does banning the veil actually empower these women against oppressive patriarchs.

bcause the argument would become "see, we're not wearing our veils in France and nothin bad is happenng, the wives are still loyal even though the guy in the supermarket saw my mouth as i said thank you for my change" As i said before, people born into oppression usually don't know they're being oppressed. Im tired of peple having to tread on eggshells because some thing is 'cultural' , being cultural doesn't mean correct or just. There was even some talk in islamic circles in iran to make women wear a veil that covers one eye aswell, because " a women could seduce a man with her eyes, and cause themselves to be raped " - id bet many muslim women would find the very noton ridiculous, but nonetheless would have to go through with it.

All im saying is once women realize that te world isnt going to end if they take there veils off and men won't suddenly rape them to death because there hair and there nike sweater can be seen, they might start to question a few other imposed 'cultural' laws and regulations.

again, where do you get the idea that the women who are wearing the veil are, for the majority, being forced?

it seems you think people are
free if they think and act like you do, which is the exact opposite of freedom

Supposedly (looking for a source) at least 25% of Muslim women in France who wear a full burqua are actually converts from other religions and presumably knew a bit about Islam before converting (and neccessarily knew a lot about not being Muslim and not wearing the burqua).

I also find it funny that ~2000 people wear the full burqua in all of France. Do laws usually effect 0.003% of the population?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do laws usually effect 0.003% of the population?

Laws usually apply to 100% of a population.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Laws usually apply to 100% of a population.
effect =/= apply to

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I also find it funny that ~2000 people wear the full burqua in all of France. Do laws usually effect 0.003% of the population?

I don't know, how many teachers rape the children they are in charge of?

Originally posted by Mindset
...but didn't they want this done because of security reasons? That was my impression. It's like wearing a mask.

Originally posted by Mindship
That was my impression. It's like wearing a mask.

Is wearing a mask in public illegal in France?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, how many teachers rape the children they are in charge of?

Not the same at all. The only valid rationale behind laws against sexual abuse of children is the protection of the rights of all the children. Therefore they are all effected by the law.

This law on the other hand is specifically designed to target and effect a very small minority of the population on the basis of a religious practice.

Originally posted by Mindship
That was my impression. It's like wearing a mask.

so, what you are saying is:

prior to this law, if a police officer thought a Muslim women with a veil acting suspiciously, he was unable to ask the woman to identify and explain herself?

like, I shave my head, I can put up a hood and wear large aviator glasses, and I become fairly unidentifiable. the only reason this should ever warrant a police officer questioning me would be if I were acting in a way that was suspicious. otherwise, we are talking about matters of taste.

I'd also like some evidence that Muslim women pose a real security threat in France, and if they do, how this law does anything to prevent that threat... especially if things like scarves and sunglasses are still legal

Originally posted by 753
Not the same at all. The only valid rationale behind laws against sexual abuse of children is the protection of the rights of all the children. Therefore they are all effected by the law.

This law on the other hand is specifically designed to target and effect a very small minority of the population on the basis of a religious practice.

He was the one asking about other laws, I wondered whether he was right, so I stated that I could imagine that there are certain laws targeting a small group.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This reminds me of a news story a friend emailed me a while back:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2642956/Tesco-supermarket-bans-Jedi-Knight-for-wearing-hood.html

"I'll advise worshippers to boycott Tesco if it happens again. They will feel the Force."

If only that were true, it'd be epic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is wearing a mask in public illegal in France? If I looked like I belonged to a group associated with causing trouble, then unfairly or not I could see the cause for concern.

Originally posted by Mindship
If I looked like I belonged to a group associated with causing trouble, then unfairly or not I could see the cause for concern.

I'm just wondering if your point is right, do you know whether wearing a mask in public generally illegal in France or not?

Don't know the laws per se, but wearing a balaclava (escpecially outside of winter) is a logical reason of concern for police/authorities. Considering it's used by criminals in committing crimes.

Muslim women wearing veils attacking/bombing isn't something that happens often, I wouldn't think.

So the comparison, is a bit silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm just wondering if your point is right, do you know whether wearing a mask in public generally illegal in France or not?
Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

Based on this excerpt from the article, I would guess not. But they're workin' on it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

Based on this excerpt from the article, I would guess not. But they're workin' on it.

Maybe just make an exception for non-muslim face concealment...might save time.

Originally posted by Mindship
Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

Based on this excerpt from the article, I would guess not. But they're workin' on it.

I guess France is going to suck in the winter...

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't know the laws per se, but wearing a balaclava (escpecially outside of winter) is a logical reason of concern for police/authorities. Considering it's used by criminals in committing crimes.

Muslim women wearing veils attacking/bombing isn't something that happens often, I wouldn't think.

So the comparison, is a bit silly.

Except those burka wearing gunmen who went into a French bank and robed it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Except those burka wearing gunmen who went into a French bank and robed it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

Does this happen often?

Originally posted by Robtard
Does this happen often?

I don't know, does suicide bombing in America happen often?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't know, does suicide bombing in America happen often? I don't think so.

But what do you guys even consider "often"?

Originally posted by Juk3n
bcause the argument would become "see, we're not wearing our veils in France and nothin bad is happenng, the wives are still loyal even though the guy in the supermarket saw my mouth as i said thank you for my change" As i said before, people born into oppression usually don't know they're being oppressed. Im tired of peple having to tread on eggshells because some thing is 'cultural' , being cultural doesn't mean correct or just. There was even some talk in islamic circles in iran to make women wear a veil that covers one eye aswell, because " a women could seduce a man with her eyes, and cause themselves to be raped " - id bet many muslim women would find the very noton ridiculous, but nonetheless would have to go through with it.

All im saying is once women realize that te world isnt going to end if they take there veils off and men won't suddenly rape them to death because there hair and there nike sweater can be seen, they might start to question a few other imposed 'cultural' laws and regulations.
You do understand that when France tried to ban burqas in schools, the largest outcry against it was from Muslim women? That there was a large demonstration of Muslim women in Turkey when they banned the burqa? It's not a sign of oppression to the people who actually choose to wear it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't know, does suicide bombing in America happen often?

No, they don't.

Do you really think Burkas should be banned due to the very-off chance some bank robber while use one to commit a crime?

If we were to search all bank robberies in France, there's a very good chance that robbers have used hats, sunglasses, make-up and wigs to conceal their identity. Not sure you'd agreed that France should ban these too.

Originally posted by Bardock42


But what do you guys even consider "often"?

If there were many bank robberies, say several a year where Burka-clad robbers did the robbing, I'd understand if France outlawed Burkas in banks.

Originally posted by Mindship
Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

Based on this excerpt from the article, I would guess not. But they're workin' on it. If that's the purpose of this law I guess I wouldnt object to it, but it seems pretty clear that this is directed at Muslims. So why did the opposing party walk out of the vote? If they were trying to make a statement, actually voting would have been more to the point.

i just came from the bank... i was wearing shades and a hat with a full beard.. no one said anything to me.. i am also pretty sure it is illegal to wear hats and shades in my state inside a bank.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't know, does suicide bombing in America happen often? No, but how does that connect to this debate?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think so.

But what do you guys even consider "often"?

Good question, and I have no idea what 'often' would entail in bank robberies? Do we calculate each month or year, or according to how many robberies there are around the world, than find a mean and use it as an average?

I haven't a clue.
Originally posted by 753
No, but how does that connect to this debate?

It has. Suicide bombing doesn't happen often in America, there is therefore no need to have a tight aeroplane and airport security. Because...it doesn't happen ''often''.

No, that's not digging deep to validate a stance and making illogical comparisons, not at all.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Good question, and I have no idea what 'often' would entail in bank robberies? Do we calculate each month or year, or according to how many robberies there are around the world, than find a mean and use it as an average?

I haven't a clue.


It has. Suicide bombing doesn't happen often in America, there is therefore no need to have a tight aeroplane and airport security. Because...it doesn't happen ''often''.

I completely agree with the second part, **** airport security.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is wearing a mask in public illegal in France?

I believe this law would make it illegal. Supposedly there is an exception for Santa costumes, which I suspect will make for some humorous bank robberies or 4chan protests.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, how many teachers rape the children they are in charge of?

Okay, good point. Still, it seems that the extent of the problem is over estimated. 5000000 Muslims, 2000 women in burquas and apparently at least a few of them converted to Islam.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I completely agree with the second part, **** airport security.

They guy in Munich told me to take my belt off this morning. That was weird.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It has. Suicide bombing doesn't happen often in America, there is therefore no need to have a tight aeroplane and airport security. Because...it doesn't happen ''often''.

I'm not sure that's sound logic. Tight security would tend to discourage attacks that require passing through check points.

Or if we have an analogy. I build a zoo (America) with some walls (security) to keep the animals (brown folk) from attacking visitors (American). Should a lack of visitors getting killed by animals make me consider taking down the walls?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe this law would make it illegal. Supposedly there is an exception for Santa costumes, which I suspect will make for some humorous bank robberies or 4chan protests.

Well, at least they are somewhat fair in unfairly targetting a specific group.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, good point. Still, it seems that the extent of the problem is over estimated. 5000000 Muslims, 2000 women in burquas and apparently at least a few of them converted to Islam.


I do agree with you. Like I said (or perhaps wanted to say and never did) I agree with it for public building, if the government wants to ban it there, fair enough, I also think that private owners should have the right to ban them in their establishments... especially banks, of course. But to ban them to be worn them just in public (any sort of face concealment, actually) seems rather unfair, and also somewhat pointless.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They guy in Munich told me to take my belt off this morning. That was weird.

Airport or gay bar?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They guy in Munich told me to take my belt off this morning. That was weird.

my nipple rings set off the metal detectors in Winnipeg earlier this week

never happens at American airports though...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.

I argee why should they do that?They are not arab or anything so what is the point?To me this is almost praising people who bomb us at 911

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure that's sound logic. Tight security would tend to discourage attacks that require passing through check points.

Or if we have an analogy. I build a zoo (America) with some walls (security) to keep the animals (brown folk) from attacking visitors (American). Should a lack of visitors getting killed by animals make me consider taking down the walls?

Well that's interesting, since your logic is not sound at all. In fact, you're talking about walling people (or animals as your example states) off.

However, banks, government buildings and public places have for a very long time, not allowed, sunglasses, baseball caps, motorcycle helmets, hoods or any such coverings onto their premisses, for security reasons.
In fact, if you attempted to enter with any of those, you will be asked to remove them. There is, therefore, a sound reason for not allowing this type of clothes.

There is clearly a difference in wearing a head scarf and looking normal

http://expat21.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/headscarf-fashion-3.jpg

and wearing a ninja tent

http://moretoaveil.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/niqab.jpg

I see no problem with banning this kind of clothing. Teachers who insist on wearing niqab should not be allowed to work as teachers either.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure that's sound logic. Tight security would tend to discourage attacks that require passing through check points.

Or if we have an analogy. I build a zoo (America) with some walls (security) to keep the animals (brown folk) from attacking visitors (American). Should a lack of visitors getting killed by animals make me consider taking down the walls?
The problem is, I don't think we really have any statistics showing that a large number of attacks were deterred by tough security.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee why should they do that?They are not arab or anything so what is the point? Because the tradition is muslim, not arab.



You're a moron.

Originally posted by 753
...You're a moron.

Now, now... no personal attacks: You should say "your way of thinking is moronic".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now, now... no personal attacks: You should say "your way of thinking is moronic". Lesson learned, I'll euphemize my insults from now on.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The problem is, I don't think we really have any statistics showing that a large number of attacks were deterred by tough security.

Not that it would be possible at all to get such statistics (unless you're willing to eliminate security and see how many people die, I guess) But it's very hard to imagine that security wouldn't deter anyone.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well that's interesting, since your logic is not sound at all. In fact, you're talking about walling people (or animals as your example states) off.

I literally preceded that sentence with the words: "Or if we have an analogy."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or if we have an analogy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not that it would be possible at all to get such statistics (unless you're willing to eliminate security and see how many people die, I guess) But it's very hard to imagine that security wouldn't deter anyone.
I disagree. Most terrorists aren't retards, if they were able to plan an attack, they could plan a way to get around security. Usually they're pretty bright people, from what i've heard.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I disagree. Most terrorists aren't retards, if they were able to plan an attack, they could plan a way to get around security. Usually they're pretty bright people, from what i've heard. But it makes it more difficult. If people could simply carry common weapons into the plane the number of incidents would probably be higher. However, most (reasonable) airport security procedures revolve arround preventing drug trafficking, not plane hijackings that are so rare, even if they do come up with more pointless crap, like airport racial profiling, everytime there is a hijack to make people feel safer.

Originally posted by 753
But it makes it more difficult. If people could simply carry common weapons into the plane the number of incidents would probably be higher. However, most (reasonable) airport security procedures revolve arround preventing drug trafficking, not plane hijackings that are so rare, even if they do come up with more pointless crap, like airport racial profiling, everytime there is a hijack to make people feel safer.
Yeah, but even before 9/11 you couldn't take guns on a plane. I feel that the security restrictions since then have been pretty wasteful.

Originally posted by 753
But it makes it more difficult. If people could simply carry common weapons into the plane the number of incidents would probably be higher. However, most (reasonable) airport security procedures revolve arround preventing drug trafficking, not plane hijackings that are so rare, even if they do come up with more pointless crap, like airport racial profiling, everytime there is a hijack to make people feel safer.

Maybe they should legalize all drugs so they can focus on the real problems.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe they should legalize all drugs so they can focus on the real problems. agreed

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well that's interesting, since your logic is not sound at all. In fact, you're talking about walling people (or animals as your example states) off.

However, banks, government buildings and public places have for a very long time, not allowed, sunglasses, baseball caps, motorcycle helmets, hoods or any such coverings onto their premisses, for security reasons.
In fact, if you attempted to enter with any of those, you will be asked to remove them. There is, therefore, a sound reason for not allowing this type of clothes.


I see no problem with banning this kind of clothing. Teachers who insist on wearing niqab should not be allowed to work as teachers either. Since when have sunglasses and baseball caps been banned in public places? I understand banning them in banks and government buildings, but not banning them outright.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness


There is clearly a difference in wearing a head scarf and looking normal

and wearing a ninja tent

I see no problem with banning this kind of clothing. Teachers who insist on wearing niqab should not be allowed to work as teachers either.

Define normal?

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Since when have sunglasses and baseball caps been banned in public places? I understand banning them in banks and government buildings, but not banning them outright.

Public places was a poor choice of words. I meant government buildings, banks and such. Although I don't doubt if you went out with some kind of complete face covering during the summer or spring, you'd be deemed suspicious wherever you went, maybe even stopped.

This is just extreme

http://www.hedeyah.com/prodimages/overhead-abayac.jpg


Originally posted by Robtard
Define normal?

Islamic norm.

PARIS - The French parliaments lower house overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing headscarf style. The part of a determined effort to define and protect French values that the community has puzzled many Muslim countries.

Europe has never understood the concept of personal freedoms.
It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.
Neither do some posters on this forum, apparently.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Europe has never understood the concept of personal freedoms.
It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.
Neither do some posters on this forum, apparently.

That's silly. Most of Europe has just as much a grasp of personal freedom as the US, they just don't wear it sillily as a badge without understanding the concept. I suppose you have a point, if you define personal freedoms as chanting "land of the free, land of the free" while all around you they are corroded with cheer.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Europe has never understood the concept of personal freedoms.
It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.
Neither do some posters on this forum, apparently.

Europe doesn't understand the concept of personal freedoms?

What the **** is that even supposed to mean? Stop talking out of your arse.



Europe is a continent. It's a big place with shit loads of cultures... Many of which are far more liberal in regards to what is acceptable for a person to do than your United States.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Liberality of culture and approach to personal freedom are not the same thing, though. Most EU nations are very different from America when it comes to what guaranteeing person freedoms means.

Take Germany as one example, it's illegal to deny the holocaust there. In the US such a law would be unthinkable to just about everyone but it seems (and Europeans should correct me here) that Germans and Europeans in general see that as needlessly permissive and prefer to turn the law against the aggressor rather than hold freedom of speech utterly sacrosanct.

That's rather selective though, the US does limit personal freedoms in many other ways. Saying that "Europe never understood" implies something very different than that they have different interpretations as to what personal freedoms should be limited how. Like I said, the issue that you bend over backwards to get shafted for the illusion that you can have your guns, and say what you want and are oh so free, is imo an American phenomenon. The limitations actually are quite similar, the attitude towards it isn't necessarily.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Liberality of culture and approach to personal freedom are not the same thing, though. Most EU nations are very different from America when it comes to what guaranteeing person freedoms means.

Take Germany as one example, it's illegal to deny the holocaust there. In the US such a law would be unthinkable to just about everyone but it seems (and Europeans should correct me here) that Germans and Europeans in general see that as needlessly permissive and prefer to turn the law against the aggressor rather than hold freedom of speech utterly sacrosanct. Right... So in what way are a British person's "personal freedoms" restricted? In a way that an Amercan's is not??

Originally posted by inimalist
iirc it is illegal to deny the holocaust in britain as well...

or was it that a brit was recently arrested somewhere else for denying the holocaust...

EDIT: anyways, there are a series of blasphemy laws in britain that dont exist in north america

I think you're referring to David Irving who was jailed in Austria for a speech crime called "trivializing, grossly playing down and denying the holocaust".

Originally posted by jaden101
I think you're referring to David Irving who was jailed in Austria for a speech crime called "trivializing, grossly playing down and denying the holocaust".

Which is a bummer...though at least he's afforded a real trial with a lawyer....also isn't tortured. But those are the less important personal freedoms.

Originally posted by 753
Because the tradition is muslim, not arab.



Muslim and arabs are the same and you are the one who is a moron!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Muslim and arabs are the same and you are the one who is a moron!

That's not true at all. There are Arabs who aren't Muslim and there are Muslims who aren't Arab. It is definitely not the same thing.

Ok whatever I know some people who are the same but got to go anyway talk to you later.

Originally posted by 753
and even headscarfs that only cover the hair are being banned in germany, That's not true, the only restriction is that if you are a teacher you're not allowed to wear a headscarf.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's not true, the only restriction is that if you are a teacher you're not allowed to wear a headscarf.

I agree with the rest of your post though. Right, that's the restriction I was talking about, I couldnt remember its details.

That's silly. Most of Europe has just as much a grasp of personal freedom as the US, they just don't wear it sillily as a badge without understanding the concept. I suppose you have a point, if you define personal freedoms as chanting "land of the free, land of the free" while all around you they are corroded with cheer.
Hate speech laws. Suck it, commie.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi


That could be true if 20+ million Chinese morphed into Arabs.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Europe has never understood the concept of personal freedoms.
It's a great decision and the one that has been long overdue. If they want to wear such clothes they can move to Saudi Arabia.


And Americans never understood the concept of continents and countries.
And apparently some posters on here don't either.

Banning the veil still wont do a damn thing to stop us from to eventually becoming a majority group in Europe.
Im so happy to see that in the UK this wont happen and the UK has around 3 million British muslims which is alot less than France.

Leicester will have an Asian majority population by around 2020 and i hope the same thing happens to all the major cities across Britain

I disagree with the ban. If a woman wants to wear it, she should be able to. If she doesn't, that's cool too. It shouldn't be a government-handled thing.

I think saying they should move back to the Middle East is a bit much, Milla...

Originally posted by majid86
Banning the veil still wont do a damn thing to stop us from to eventually becoming a majority group in Europe.
Im so happy to see that in the UK this wont happen and the UK has around 3 million British muslims which is alot less than France.

I don't think France has any British muslims.

Originally posted by majid86
Leicester will have an Asian majority population by around 2020 and i hope the same thing happens to all the major cities across Britain

The last statistics I found in a quick search show the number of Asians in Leicester shrinking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think France has any British muslims.



The last statistics I found in a quick search show the number of Asians in Leicester shrinking.

Sorry i meant french muslims which are around 6 million twice the amount of british muslims and as for Leicester, it is the white population which are shrinking due to low birth rate and unemployment.

I hope one day that us british asians make up at least 25% of the UK population and eventually maybe have a british asian prime minister in the next decade

And Americans never understood the concept of continents and countries.
And apparently some posters on here don't either.
You have ten seconds to justify the veil ban. Go.

Did they also ban the turbun as well?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You have ten seconds to justify the veil ban. Go.

Scientific studies have shown that second-hand Burka wearing is harmful to mental and physical health. Causes cancer.

lol!
Yeah right! and next you're gonna tell me that jewish skull caps cause fatal bloodclots

Originally posted by majid86
Did they also ban the turbun as well?

Sikh's have been protesting the ban on turbans for several years but Sarkozay claims that no ban exists. Which may be the most bizzare thing I've heard all week.

I think when it comes to successful multiculturalism in a western country then i would pick Canada as the prime example.

Heck i would even immigrate to Vancouver if things go sour in Britain for us.
In Canada, multiculturalism is a source of pride for all Canadians.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Scientific studies have shown that second-hand Burka wearing is harmful to mental and physical health. Causes cancer.

That was funny, however first hand burqa can be daayngerouz -

According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99% of women who wore burqua suffer from deficiency in Vitamin D. Deficiency in Vitamin D leads to bone softening diseases. (I believe, although I could be wrong).

Although I suppose they can get supplements to fix that...

what a load of BS

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That was funny, however first hand burqa can be daayngerouz -

According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99% of women who wore burqua suffer from deficiency in Vitamin D. Deficiency in Vitamin D leads to bone softening diseases. (I believe, although I could be wrong).

Although I suppose they can get supplements to fix that...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSHAR56610220070625
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1565

Even after taking supplements the researchers found that most of them still didn't have the vitamin D levels that would be healthy.

Even if its true which im not sure it is, why would non muslim white people care about muslim people anyway?

Thats very strange

Originally posted by majid86
Even if its true which im not sure it is

It makes logical sense (we typically produce vitamin D with the help of sunlight) and when people went out to test it it turned out to be true.

Originally posted by majid86
why would non muslim white people care about muslim people anyway?

Empathy.

Well, yes i can understand by what you said but ive always looked out for my own people more than anything else.
I mean im not a racist or anything and hate all racists including jihadists but ive always never been empathic towards lets say the Jews because of the holocast or the Blacks because of the slave trade.

I wouldn't want the same horrible thing happening to us Brown folks and neither to anyboby else for that matter

Originally posted by majid86
Well, yes i can understand by what you said but ive always looked out for my own people more than anything else.

Empathy doesn't mean caring about others before yourself. If you see a man in a burning building you can empathize with his plight but not be moved to risk your own life to save him. These researchers didn't have to risk much and they confirmed a number of things about the body that probably interested them.

Originally posted by majid86
I mean im not a racist or anything and hate all racists including jihadists but ive always never been empathic towards lets say the Jews because of the holocast or the Blacks because of the slave trade.

I wouldn't want the same horrible thing happening to us Brown folks and i neither to anyboby else for that matter

I'm not really sure what you mean here. If you can understand the the Holocaust was bad in a way that makes you not want it to happen to you then to my mind you must have have empathy with the people who suffered from it.

Well i guess i do have empathy for anyone who has suffered such horrible things that has happened to them.
I just didnt think about it as deeply until now and i hope that this veil ban will be abolished very soon

Even though im a proud British Asian, i do feel why some White British are very opposed to foreign immigration and sometimes vote BNP cause they feel afraid and have every right to be

We'll correct that to very proud British-Asian, Majid. I think you kinda missed the point with why us whiteys would care about non-white Muslims. The point was that we're all people and we tend to look out for each other.

Interesting study about the connection between burkas and vitamin D deficiency. Never thought about that before.

Originally posted by majid86
Even if its true which im not sure it is, why would non muslim white people care about muslim people anyway?

Thats very strange

Well they care about people in their countries, regardless of religion or race. The Muslims living in those countries are just as much their own people as the whites living there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well they care about people in their countries, regardless of religion or race. The Muslims living in those countries are just as much their own people as the whites living there.

I wish that were true but unfortunately its not the case because the UK, British Asians make up 6% of the total population which is 4 million and now in its 3rd or 4th generation since our grandparents decided to move to the UK.

British Asians are constantly told to go back home by White British people despite the fact we were born and raised here and hail from most of Britain's major cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Leeds.

White British people will never accept us as their fellow countrymen and that is the bottom line.

Originally posted by majid86
White British people will never accept us their fellow countymen and that is the bottom line.

As long as you make sweeping generalizations about them and talk like you're planning to take over Leicester they're probably not going to accept you.

Originally posted by majid86
I wish that were true but unfortunately its not the case because the UK, British Asians make up 6% of the total population which is 4 million and now in its 3rd or 4th generation since our grandparents decided to move to the UK.

British Asians are constantly told to go back home by White British people despite the fact we were born and raised here and hail from most of Britain's major cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Leeds.

White British people will never accept us as their fellow countrymen and that is the bottom line.

I don't know whether that is true, but I was talking about the government

Originally posted by majid86
Even though im a proud British Asian, i do feel why some White British are very opposed to foreign immigration and sometimes vote BNP cause they feel afraid and have every right to be

the BNP consistantly do terribly at the polls, in fact, they are losing the seats they had previously won.

don't divide the world into us and them and you will help yourself much more than if you talk about all white people as being anti-muslim/immigrant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As long as you make sweeping generalizations about them and talk like you're planning to take over Leicester they're probably not going to accept you.

Well i dont think that true because i didn't say that British Asians were gonna takeover Leicester, i just said that British Asians will eventually become the majority ethnic group and there will still be White British people living there after all.

And just take a look at London it has over 300 ethnic groups ranging from British Latinos (yes there are lots of Hispanic people born and raised in the UK) to British Somalian to British Filipinos which adds in weight to the fact that London is the world's premier city.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That could be true if 20+ million Chinese morphed into Arabs.




And Americans never understood the concept of continents and countries.
And apparently some posters on here don't either.

That is a creepy thought.But this has nothing to do with Chinese so whatever.

Originally posted by majid86
I wish that were true but unfortunately its not the case because the UK, British Asians make up 6% of the total population which is 4 million and now in its 3rd or 4th generation since our grandparents decided to move to the UK.

British Asians are constantly told to go back home by White British people despite the fact we were born and raised here and hail from most of Britain's major cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Leeds.

White British people will never accept us as their fellow countrymen and that is the bottom line.

Oh please. And you're just overflowing with goodwill and friendship towards white British people, aren't you?

Britons have made all the possible adjustments to suit everyone, but the fact that my uncle is advised by the police to not go to certain places in Bradford for the fear of being beaten by Asian youth, somehow escapes your scope of argument.

How about you go and get to know some white British people (non-chavs). If you make the effort, you'll find that they're very accepting lot and try not to say threatening things to their democracy and their country, such as ''the flag of Islam will fly over 12 Downing street'' for example.

I'm still awaiting a justification for the veil ban.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm still awaiting a justification for the veil ban.

It's weird, they look like ninjas.
It causes vitamin-D deficiency.
You can hide an Barrett M107 in that thing.
Nuns have a no contest contract for wearing most of the outfit.

There isn't one, as far as I'm concerned, Zeal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's weird, they look like ninjas.
It causes vitamin-D deficiency.
You can hide an Barrett M107 in that thing.
Nuns have a no contest contract for wearing most of the outfit.

It's also somewhat sexist.

I think it's bad news if the government enforces the opposite- all women must wear burkas- but if nobody is forcing them to do it and it's done by choice, then have at it.

Originally posted by REXXXX
I think it's bad news if the government enforces the opposite- all women must wear burkas- but if nobody is forcing them to do it and it's done by choice, then have at it.

Just that it might not be done by choice. It's somewhat similar to the business thing in the other thread, but if it is forcibly mandated by the family, then it is not really a choice, and the government may ultimately want to do something about it, to corrode this attitude.

Hmm, fair enough, I could understand that. The opposite to that could be 'don't mess with other cultures' but they ARE in France. Still, I think a total ban is a bit much.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Hmm, fair enough, I could understand that. The opposite to that could be 'don't mess with other cultures' but they ARE in France. Still, I think a total ban is a bit much. I do, too. That is just one of the arguments that I can somewhat follow, the other being some danger in public building and banks, etc. though neither is enough to make me agree with it.

Yeah, me neither. The logic of it being a danger in public places, if one were to jump off the deep end, would also require pretty much nobody to wear anything on their faces ever again. Not a practical argument.

Originally posted by REXXXX
would also require pretty much nobody to wear anything on their faces ever again. Not a practical argument. That's more or less a law in germany

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that it might not be done by choice. It's somewhat similar to the business thing in the other thread, but if it is forcibly mandated by the family, then it is not really a choice, and the government may ultimately want to do something about it, to corrode this attitude.

This contains a provision against forcing people to wear it. $30000 dollars and jail time, I think.

Is that the actual punishment for breaking the No Burka law?

Interesting, Parmaniac. I didn't know that. Tell me more?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This contains a provision against forcing people to wear it. $30000 dollars and jail time, I think. which could be made into a crime by itself with no need to prohibit women from wearing it without coercion.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Is that the actual punishment for breaking the No Burka law?

Interesting, Parmaniac. I didn't know that. Tell me more? its the penalty for coercing women into wearing it.

Steep penalty. I suppose it'd turn into a matter of proving whether or not the women who chose to wear burkas were coerced.

Is there an actual penalty for the women wearing it by choice?

Originally posted by REXXXX
Is that the actual punishment for breaking the No Burka law?

Interesting, Parmaniac. I didn't know that. Tell me more?

Just for forcing people to wear it (was it not a crime before?) not for wearing it, for that the penalty is $185 and/or "citizenship classes". Which may be the creepiest thing anyone ever put into a law.

That sounds... really uncomfortable. Citizenship classes?

Thanks for supplying the German text, allows me to practice!

It's probably not a very common thing in Germany to be Muslim, is it? I know you guys have a pretty decent Turkish population but that doesn't necessarily mean Muslim.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Thanks for supplying the German text, allows me to practice!

It's probably not a very common thing in Germany to be Muslim, is it? I know you guys have a pretty decent Turkish population but that doesn't necessarily mean Muslim. It usually does, I believe. I haven't seen full burkas ever, but there are Turkish women who wear robes that and a head scarf, but exposing their faces.

Turkey is somewhat different than other Muslim places though.

Farther west than most of the Middle East and with better relations with the Western world. I'd say so.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh please. And you're just overflowing with goodwill and friendship towards white British people, aren't you?

Britons have made all the possible adjustments to suit everyone, but the fact that my uncle is advised by the police to not go to certain places in Bradford for the fear of being beaten by Asian youth, somehow escapes your scope of argument.

How about you go and get to know some white British people (non-chavs). If you make the effort, you'll find that they're very accepting lot and try not to say threatening things to their democracy and their country, such as ''the flag of Islam will fly over 12 Downing street'' for example.

Well i never said that us British Asians were taking over anything, i just stated the fact that in 20 or 30 years time British Asians will eventually become the majority ethic racial group in most major UK cities and that is a fact.

Secondly, its not my fault that your uncle would get beaten up by some British Asian guys if he were to visit Bradford at all, i mean i wanted to travel to Belfast a couple years back but my cousin told me it would be a big mistake to travel there because of the fact that Belfast is a city where white people dont like white people and if they dont like each other then why they like a British Asian person coming to there city.
And thats not your fault either.

Finallly, i dont need to know any White British people at all, i mean there's hardly any of them left in the area of London which i live in. Bottom line is that we are not going absolutely nowhere are gonna expand across the country and hopefully get a British Asian man in 10 Downing Street.
If the US can have a Black president then the UK has a great chance of having a Brown prime minister and that would be a fantastic occasion.

Originally posted by REXXXX
It's probably not a very common thing in Germany to be Muslim, is it?

interesting connection between Germany and Islamic radicalism

... not on topic though...

Originally posted by majid86
Well i never said that us British Asians were taking over anything, i just stated the fact that in 20 or 30 years time British Asians will eventually become the majority ethic racial group in most major UK cities and that is a fact.

Secondly, its not my fault that your uncle would get beaten up by some British Asian guys if he were to visit Bradford at all, i mean i wanted to travel to Belfast a couple years back but my cousin told me it would be a big mistake to travel there because of the fact that Belfast is a city where white people dont like white people and if they dont like each other then why they like a British Asian person coming to there city.
And thats not your fault either.

Finallly, i dont need to know any White British people at all, i mean there's hardly any of them left in the area of London which i live in. Bottom line is that we are not going absolutely nowhere are gonna expand across the country and hopefully get a British Asian man in 10 Downing Street.
If the US can have a Black president then the UK has a great chance of having a Brown prime minister and that would be a fantastic occasion.

Don't you mean largest ethnic minority? If you think they'll become majority in the UK as a whole, then you're sorely mistaken.

Second, why in the hell would Britain have an Asian prime minister just for the sake of it? Prime ministers are not picked by their ethnicity but by what they could offer to the people.

Until Asian leaders stop being hell bent on introducing Sharia law into UK, stop being offended by Christmas decorations and Christmas cards, and stop wanting to ban English flags everywhere citing it's ''racist'' because St. George's cross was used in crusades - Asian Muslim prime minister is not going to happen.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Don't you mean largest ethnic minority? If you think they'll become majority in the UK as a whole, then you're sorely mistaken.

Second, why in the hell would Britain have an Asian prime minister just for the sake of it? Prime ministers are not picked by their ethnicity but by what they could offer to the people.

Until Asian leaders stop being hell bent on introducing Sharia law into UK, stop being offended by Christmas decorations and Christmas cards, and stop wanting to ban English flags everywhere citing it's ''racist'' because St. George's cross was used in crusades - Asian Muslim prime minister is not going to happen.

I meant UK cities not the entire country and a future British Asian prime minister doesn't need to be muslim heck he could be Hindu, Sikh, Christian or even an Atheist for that matter just as long as he is in 10 Downing Street so that we can have one of our own people calling all the shots.

If White British people dont like it then tough luck because multiculturalism is the furture for Britain and we will never back down from our expansion,

The future for Britain is Brown and its gonna be great

Originally posted by majid86
I meant UK cities not the entire country and a future British Asian prime minister doesn't need to be muslim heck he could be Hindu, Sikh, Christian or even an Atheist for that matter just as long as he is in 10 Downing Street so that we can have one of people calling all the shots.

And if you dont like it then tough

Even getting the majority in most UK cities within 20 years seems unlikely. The country is 90% white.