KKK outfit worn in Australia Muslim veil protest

[H1w4yR1da]

Do you realise (unlike h1w4r1der) that Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc are not "the West" as stated in the quote of me he was responding to?

Hence..

Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britainl" [/b]etc. etc.

Just one of many of reckon! Edited October 30, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[JockPieandBeans]

Seastallion

I am not one to blindly hold on to a position out of sheer pig-headedness so I don't mind conceding that I think you make a valid point. If it is a choice, perhaps there should be no dispensation.

Having said that and contemplating further......wearing a crucifix is a choice and tied in with the wearer's religion. There's always controversy when schools or companies try to ban the wearing of religious symbols such as the crucifix. (I know a crucifix does not cover the face...the issue is freedom to wear your religious accoutrements.) Start with the veil, and you must progress to other symbols/accoutrements on some other pretext. eg. Sikh turbans so that they are forced to don helmets and comply with the law like everybody else.

You either give dispensation for religious accoutrements or you don't.

Neither am I.

I also believe that people should be free to practice whatever religion that want to follow.

Herein lies the problem, the topic is about face coverings. I do not care a jot whether those face coverings belong to muggers, KKK members, Muslims or anyone else. Face coverings, of any description have NO place in a modern, civilised society.

religious accoutriments, and where or when they can be worn is a separate issue. Just for the record, places of education should be one of those places hat they are banned totally. To go along with that, places of education should not be taking part in ANY religious activities either.

It is interesting that although Sikh's have a dispensation from wearing crash helmets, I personally never seen a Sikh whizz by on a motorbike wearing a turban.

Here is an article that you might want to read.

http://news.sky.com/story/1360880/nigeria-girls-detail-horrific-boko-haram-abuse

I am highlighting one of the comments as it is relevant. Whether it is true or not, I do not knpw. If it is true, it highlights why people are getting sick and tired of many things Muslim.

@CAROL.ARCHBOLD Even more bloody amazing that you don't see the hoards of Muslims rising up and protesting over this...

Last week hundreds of Muslims protesting in the EastEnd for "Sharia Law - UK"

A couple of weeks ago Muslims blocked the Blackwall Tunnel...demonstrating for Islam.

Muslims praying out on streets, completely and utterly without any regard for anyone one else, motorist or pedestrian going about their business, their bloody praying comes before anything. If I and my friends lay down in the middle of EastHam High Street spouting secularism...you see how quick the blue lights would be flashing and how quick we would be whipped off to the police station.

At the moment I hang my head in shame as to how my beloved country is being run to accommodate Muslims left right and centre.

UK must rise up against this invidious threat...use your vote.

Still doubting...have a look at NewHam's Conservative Party...

London has one mayor, one city one mayor right? Not so...Tower Hamlets (a London Borough) has a mayor all of their own...a Muslim one...nothing is said or done...

Nice quote there Jock. It stands to show the spittle-laden splutterings of the ignorant xenophobes. London has 32 boroughs, all of which have borough councils that could have mayors. Four of which actually do have elected mayors. One of those mayors is a Muslim. Shock horror! She makes it out to be a conspiracy that Boris has secretly installed a mayor just for the appeasement of the Muslims of Tower Hamlets. And the writer is a Londoner! I have to laugh, really, at the hysteria.

Seastallion

I copied the whole statement as I did not want to be accused of cutting and pasting to suit any agendas.

I am familiar with the geography of London. It was not the issue of Mayors that I was trying to highlight.

I even went as far to say that I was not sure if these events were true.

However if these events did take place, does that make the author a " Spittle laden ignorant xenophobe " ?

If these other events are true, then it is nothing more than a group of people who are using religion, to cause problems for others. To me, that is not acceptable. But that is getting off topic.

[H1w4yR1da]

They rationalise that they can't be bigots cause how can a bigot also like shagging brown chicks?

[JockPieandBeans]

They rationalise that they can't be bigots cause how can a bigot also like shagging brown chicks?

Using your rational, Muslims cannot be bigots either, they shag anybody

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/771961-anwar-in-malaysia-court-for-sodomy-case-appeal/

The age old mantra, woman are for having babies, men are for having fun.

Edited October 30, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[Jai Dee]

A number of posts containing petty bickering and flaming have been deleted from this thread.

Please be civil to each other in your discussion.

[simple1]

try to stay on topic.

Which is facial coverings, and why it should be allowed for certain sections of society and not others.

To stay on topic:

Currently in Australia some States & Territories require the removal of facial covering for identification purposes and have penalties & processes in place for non-compliance, others do not. From time to time current laws are reviewed driven by threat levels and societal issues. At this point in time none of the States & Territories have deemed it necessary to ban Islamic full face coverings in public places. Current legislation may change over time, for the meantime religious freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, takes precedence.

Currently Australia has 72 pieces of legislation in-place for terrorism / national security matters. Amendments to current legislation and some new Acts are soon to be enacted to address promoting terrorism, fighting overseas, metadata collection and so on. A Federal ban on Islamic face coverings is not included.

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the ‘discussion’.

Edited October 30, 2014 by simple1

[Tep]

try to stay on topic.

Which is facial coverings, and why it should be allowed for certain sections of society and not others.

To stay on topic:

Currently in Australia some States & Territories require the removal of facial covering for identification purposes and have penalties & processes in place for non-compliance, others do not. From time to time current laws are reviewed driven by threat levels and societal issues. At this point in time none of the States & Territories have deemed it necessary to ban Islamic full face coverings in public places. Current legislation may change over time, for the meantime religious freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, takes precedence.

Currently Australia has 72 pieces of legislation in-place for terrorism / national security matters. Amendments to current legislation and some new Acts are soon to be enacted to address promoting terrorism, fighting overseas, metadata collection and so on. A Federal ban on Islamic face coverings is not included.

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the discussion.

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

[harrry]

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

see New York as an example

allread posted one from Victoria which does discriminate for religion.

[H1w4yR1da]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it?

Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

[sustento]

In the UK the Muslims are promising to pass a law to male it legal for Muslim men to rape white women!

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

He's probably referring to Shariah law....

Rape under shariah has to be proven by four male witmesses...

...good luck getting them.

...but wait...if you cannot find them they are liable to charge you with adultery.

..so most rapes go unreported.

The above has no relevance to non-muslims in the UK for the time being.

He specifically claimed that in the UK 'the Muslims' (whoever they are) are promising to pass a law to make it legal for Muslim men to rape white women. I'm simply asking him to produce some evidence for this particular claim.

[simple1]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it? Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

The 'argument' is not going anywhere. As I recall the various topics concerning Muslims/Islam mostly get closed for the very same reason.

Edited October 30, 2014 by simple1

[JockPieandBeans]

try to stay on topic.

Which is facial coverings, and why it should be allowed for certain sections of society and not others.

To stay on topic:

Currently in Australia some States & Territories require the removal of facial covering for identification purposes and have penalties & processes in place for non-compliance, others do not. From time to time current laws are reviewed driven by threat levels and societal issues. At this point in time none of the States & Territories have deemed it necessary to ban Islamic full face coverings in public places. Current legislation may change over time, for the meantime religious freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, takes precedence.

Currently Australia has 72 pieces of legislation in-place for terrorism / national security matters. Amendments to current legislation and some new Acts are soon to be enacted to address promoting terrorism, fighting overseas, metadata collection and so on. A Federal ban on Islamic face coverings is not included.

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the ‘discussion’.

Simple 1

I did not specifically highlight Muslim face coverings. I said face coverings of ANY description have no place in a modern society.

As I posted on page 7 of the thread.

Here is an interesting paragraph from http://www.islamreli.../articles/2770/

" While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

So in simple layman terms. We will not adhere to the society that has gone out of its way to provide a better way of life for us.

So according to Muslims it is not a religious symbol. Therefore the argument that it cannot be banned for religious reasons do not exist.

And all other arguments about religious freedoms are moot points.

[Tep]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it?

Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

Stupid boy. School yard bully.

Most of us are posting and discussing. Some, like you, are arguing. Serious and meaningful words. You just can't help yourself can you?

[samran]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it?

Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

Stupid boy. School yard bully.

Most of us are posting and discussing. Some, like you, are arguing. Serious and meaningful words. You just can't help yourself can you?

I shan't dare say anything else. Am discovering certain members are creaming their pants every time I make a post.

[Tep]

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the ‘discussion’.

Your words have become prophetic Simple1.

[MJP]

Are we all okay in here? Do we have some ghastly problem?

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Good on these guys you live in Australia follow our law, our leave .

One of then wants a return to a white Australia policy. Do you?

What they gonna go with the Abos?

(Just wondering?)

[Seastallion]

try to stay on topic.

Which is facial coverings, and why it should be allowed for certain sections of society and not others.

To stay on topic:

Currently in Australia some States & Territories require the removal of facial covering for identification purposes and have penalties & processes in place for non-compliance, others do not. From time to time current laws are reviewed driven by threat levels and societal issues. At this point in time none of the States & Territories have deemed it necessary to ban Islamic full face coverings in public places. Current legislation may change over time, for the meantime religious freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, takes precedence.

Currently Australia has 72 pieces of legislation in-place for terrorism / national security matters. Amendments to current legislation and some new Acts are soon to be enacted to address promoting terrorism, fighting overseas, metadata collection and so on. A Federal ban on Islamic face coverings is not included.

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the ‘discussion’.

Simple 1

I did not specifically highlight Muslim face coverings. I said face coverings of ANY description have no place in a modern society.

As I posted on page 7 of the thread.

Here is an interesting paragraph from http://www.islamreli.../articles/2770/

" While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

So in simple layman terms. We will not adhere to the society that has gone out of its way to provide a better way of life for us.

So according to Muslims it is not a religious symbol. Therefore the argument that it cannot be banned for religious reasons do not exist.

And all other arguments about religious freedoms are moot points.

Jock, with respect, I have already drawn the distinction that the veil is a religious accoutrement. I agree it is a choice, and I see your point, but religious ties it still has, just as much as a crucifix worn around the neck. With that in mind, the veil should be respected as a religious symbol just as much as a crucifix.

Indeed this is a circular discussion.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

They rationalise that they can't be bigots cause how can a bigot also like shagging brown chicks?

I'm brown and used to shag white chicks.

Can I claim non bigot status too?

(To be fair, I must admit skin color wasn't my main selection criteria, availability was.)

(To be even more fair, I must admit 'a chick' also wasn't my main selection criteria, availability was.)

Edited October 30, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[H1w4yR1da]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it?

Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

Stupid boy. School yard bully.

Most of us are posting and discussing. Some, like you, are arguing. Serious and meaningful words. You just can't help yourself can you?

I shan't dare say anything else. Am discovering certain members are creaming their pants every time I make a post.

Wishful thinking on your part I reckon.

But it's just a matter of time before someone cries out again for the thread to be closed. Though in the current climate, there is almost a thread a day opening up on some Islamic atrocity or barbarity somewhere.

You fools really do have your hands full, poking and scraping around for excuses and apologies on multiple threads.

[samran]

Thank you Simple1 for these facts about the actual status of that issue in Australia.

I endorse your call for the closure of this thread.

Of course you do. The argument not going the way you'd like it?

Well, I don't think it'd be the first thread on Islam that he's got closed.

Stupid boy. School yard bully.

Most of us are posting and discussing. Some, like you, are arguing. Serious and meaningful words. You just can't help yourself can you?

I shan't dare say anything else. Am discovering certain members are creaming their pants every time I make a post.

Wishful thinking on your part I reckon.

But it's just a matter of time before someone cries out again for the thread to be closed. Though in the current climate, there is almost a thread a day opening up on some Islamic atrocity or barbarity somewhere.

You fools really do have your hands full, poking and scraping around for excuses and apologies on multiple threads.

Wow. I write something, and you are there! Someone might mistake you for a stalker or something! (By the way...That wasn't you on my front lawn the other morning half naked asking to be loved was it?).

[chuckd]

Wow. I write something, and you are there! Someone might mistake you for a stalker or something! (By the way...That wasn't you on my front lawn the other morning half naked asking to be loved was it?).

What sort of reputation do you have that earns you a suitor of that sort?

Just curious.

[simple1]

But it's just a matter of time before someone cries out again for the thread to be closed. Though in the current climate, there is almost a thread a day opening up on some Islamic atrocity or barbarity somewhere.

You fools really do have your hands full, poking and scraping around for excuses and apologies on multiple threads.

In my opinion nearly all posts countering POVs expressed by you and others who make similar comments are seeking some form of balance. e.g. claims that that is no such entity as a moderate Muslim, all Muslims hold the same beliefs, if Muslims do not engage or sympathise with extremist actions, they are not Muslims blah, blah... Anyone who disagrees with such content are then accused of making excuses or apologists in attempts to shut them down. Posts providing links to Islamic scholars / politicians who decry extremism are dismissed as lies and so on. The reality with people, who hold similar views to you, is refusal to recognise alternate voices of dissent within the Islamic community against extremism and always ends in circular argument; topics are shut down. Accordingly, you could equally be defined as a fool.

Within this topic are very reasonable posts that if Oz security agencies assess Islamic face covering in public as a security risk then no objection for relevant legislation to be enacted. Yet some people won't let it be.

Edited October 30, 2014 by simple1

[samran]

Wow. I write something, and you are there! Someone might mistake you for a stalker or something! (By the way...That wasn't you on my front lawn the other morning half naked asking to be loved was it?).

What sort of reputation do you have that earns you a suitor of that sort?

Just curious.

Oh, didn't you know? I'm Thai Visas resident jihadi terrorist according to some.

And get this, he has 'proof'.

Edited October 30, 2014 by samran

[canman]

try to stay on topic.

Which is facial coverings, and why it should be allowed for certain sections of society and not others.

To stay on topic:

Currently in Australia some States & Territories require the removal of facial covering for identification purposes and have penalties & processes in place for non-compliance, others do not. From time to time current laws are reviewed driven by threat levels and societal issues. At this point in time none of the States & Territories have deemed it necessary to ban Islamic full face coverings in public places. Current legislation may change over time, for the meantime religious freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, takes precedence.

Currently Australia has 72 pieces of legislation in-place for terrorism / national security matters. Amendments to current legislation and some new Acts are soon to be enacted to address promoting terrorism, fighting overseas, metadata collection and so on. A Federal ban on Islamic face coverings is not included.

In my opinion, beyond the first few pages, all that has happened within this topic is repetitious circular argument, cannot see the point in keeping the topic open as there is zero progression in the ‘discussion’.

Simple 1

I did not specifically highlight Muslim face coverings. I said face coverings of ANY description have no place in a modern society.

As I posted on page 7 of the thread.

Here is an interesting paragraph from http://www.islamreli.../articles/2770/

" While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

So in simple layman terms. We will not adhere to the society that has gone out of its way to provide a better way of life for us.

So according to Muslims it is not a religious symbol. Therefore the argument that it cannot be banned for religious reasons do not exist.

And all other arguments about religious freedoms are moot points.

Nail on the head. It is not a religious requirement to wear face covering in Islam. Google Cairo university class pic for 1960, 70 80,90 etc. You will not see any sort of head or face covering in the 50's 60's, you will see it creep in over the following decades. The face covering is a choice and not mandated by religion. Therefore a country has every right to ban it without contravening any freedom of religion laws.

This is not a religious arguement it one of security and the bigoted apologists on here should be bright enough to understand this.

[simple1]

Nail on the head. It is not a religious requirement to wear face covering in Islam. Google Cairo university class pic for 1960, 70 80,90 etc. You will not see any sort of head or face covering in the 50's 60's, you will see it creep in over the following decades. The face covering is a choice and not mandated by religion. Therefore a country has every right to ban it without contravening any freedom of religion laws.

This is not a religious arguement it one of security and the bigoted apologists on here should be bright enough to understand this.

Posts deleted to enable reply.

There you go again calling people apologists. I'll call you can extreme bigot with your (deleted) posts suggesting the extermination of Muslims.

It is recognised by some that the use of full face covering is not an Islamic prerequisite, yet some obviously believe it is. Personally I do not like the sight of full face coverings in Western society, but not for me or anyone else to force Muslim women not to wear the covering. If it's their personal preference to wear in a public place so be it, until national security determines otherwise.

[canman]

Nail on the head. It is not a religious requirement to wear face covering in Islam. Google Cairo university class pic for 1960, 70 80,90 etc. You will not see any sort of head or face covering in the 50's 60's, you will see it creep in over the following decades. The face covering is a choice and not mandated by religion. Therefore a country has every right to ban it without contravening any freedom of religion laws.

This is not a religious arguement it one of security and the bigoted apologists on here should be bright enough to understand this.

Posts deleted to enable reply.

There you go again calling people apologists. I'll call you can extreme bigot with your (deleted) posts suggesting the extermination of Muslims.

It is recognised by some that the use of full face covering is not an Islamic prerequisite, yet some obviously believe it is. Personally I do not like the sight of full face coverings in Western society, but not for me or anyone else to force Muslim women not to wear the covering. If it's their personal preference to wear in a public place so be it, until national security determines otherwise.

I don't believe I have ever made a post calling for the extermination of muslims. I have several good friends who are muslims and many who work for me and I certainly would miss them dearly if they were exterminated. I have no problem however with the extermination of radical jihadis.

[notmyself]

All this talk of face covering ONLY being a personal choice is so asinine as to be intellectually offensive to any thinking person. Without going to extremes and for the purpose of illustration let's just look at headscarves and Iran. It is illegal to show yourself in public if you do not have your head covered.. If you do you will be arrested. In what way can this be considered a personal choice?

[H1w4yR1da]

[

I'll call you can extreme bigot with your (deleted) posts suggesting the extermination of Muslims.

I don't believe I have ever made a post calling for the extermination of muslims.

Don't worry! It's got to the point where the apologists are just making stuff up.

The list of insults thrown about by the islamists just keeps getting longer. We've had racist, bigot, islamophobe etc. The newest addition is sexpat.

Edited October 31, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[simple1]

[

I'll call you can extreme bigot with your (deleted) posts suggesting the extermination of Muslims.

I don't believe I have ever made a post calling for the extermination of muslims.

Don't worry! It's got to the point where the apologists are just making stuff up.

The list of insults thrown about by the islamists just keeps getting longer. We've had racist, bigot, islamophobe etc. The newest addition is sexpat.

Not so, graphics and text calls for use of nuclear weapons to destroy entire Islamic countries have been posted, then deleted. Are you denying you have made such post/s?