GuestHouse Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) On 24 August 2016 at 5:49 AM, i claudius said: If its against the law dont do it ,simple The Conseil d'État has ruled the Mayor of Nice did not have the right to enact the ban of the Burqini on the basis of the situation within Nice. Are you now going to step up and defend the rights of women to wear a Burqini or are you only interested in what's legal when its banning others from choices you don't yourself agree with? Edited August 26, 2016 by GuestHouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgesAbitbol Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, JDGRUEN said: 'Cute' ... Wow Mindless Liberals will tolerate anything as nothing matters to them. Immigrants need to assimilate to the laws and customs of the land that they enter. It is not like you adapt to the country here neither from the posts I read.... Stuborn conservatives probably... Veil is NOT prohibited, this stupid action just show that one more time Men tell women how they should behave... Veil does not cover the face...I don't see you complain about the kippa...but I know why you don't... islam is bad!!right? Edited August 27, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 12 hours ago, JDGRUEN said: 'Cute' ... Wow Mindless Liberals will tolerate anything as nothing matters to them. Immigrants need to assimilate to the laws and customs of the land that they enter. That's right and it includes us Farangs here in LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, fasteddie said: Where is it illegal to be a Muslim sympathiser? and where am I changing my stance? DELETED Edited August 27, 2016 by sambum Duplicate post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 16 hours ago, fasteddie said: Well it's been overturned by a higher court now, she will be getting her fine back so obviously the high court thought it was an unjust and stupid law so break it and show it up for it's ridiculousness. Thank you for answering one of my questions - that if you don't agree with a law - break it. What about the other one - what do you think would happen if she deliberately broke the law in a Muslim country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 16 minutes ago, sambum said: Thank you for answering one of my questions - that if you don't agree with a law - break it. What about the other one - what do you think would happen if she deliberately broke the law in a Muslim country? Martin Luther King would agree with your first sentence. As for the second part, why is it relevant what would happen in a Muslim country? Or for that matter, in Russia, or North Korea or China or in any other country that severely restricts individual liberty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stander Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 No one is denying them the right to practice their religion in private. They don’t have the right, however, to invade the public space and impose their ideology and belief system represented by their dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 You mean that by wearing a burkini they are imposing their ideology and belief system? You mean that if I get too close to one of them I will become a Muslim? Will I become a Shiite? A Sunni? A Sufi? An Alawite? Somehow, knowledge of the particular tenets of a particular branch Islam will become lodged in my mind? All this from a form fitting swimsuit? A remarkable achievement of Islamic technology! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, stander said: No one is denying them the right to practice their religion in private. They don’t have the right, however, to invade the public space and impose their ideology and belief system represented by their dress. That's right! Who can forget the Hare Krishna's at airports and bus stations back in the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stander Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 It’s looking more and more likely to be a government scam, to stirred up dress issues, so the Governments’ lawyers could pretend to rescue freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Boon Mee said: That's right! Who can forget the Hare Krishna's at airports and bus stations back in the day? And the mass conversions of airline passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 22 hours ago, fasteddie said: Where is it illegal to be a Muslim sympathiser? and where am I changing my stance? DELETED - duplicate post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said: Martin Luther King would agree with your first sentence. As for the second part, why is it relevant what would happen in a Muslim country? Or for that matter, in Russia, or North Korea or China or in any other country that severely restricts individual liberty? So without the rule of law I believe you have what is called "anarchy" - do you want that? The second part is relevant because I was trying to illustrate that Muslims seem to be only too well aware of what the consequences are if they break the law regarding dress code in their "adopted" countries - a small fine or a "slap on the wrist" compared to the punishment that they would receive in their "home" countries for a similar offence. Edited August 27, 2016 by sambum Amended text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 30 minutes ago, sambum said: So without the rule of law I believe you have what is called "anarchy" - do you want that? The second part is relevant because I was trying to illustrate that Muslims seem to be only too well aware of what the consequences are if they break the law regarding dress code in their "adopted" countries - a small fine or a "slap on the wrist" compared to the punishment that they would receive in their "home" countries for a similar offence. So the US civil rights movement was really a crusade for anarchy? Get a grip. What's really interesting about your second comment is that you assume that if someone is a Moslem, then they are not a native of the country they are in? Or do you hold French Muslims accountable for the conditions in the countries their parents or grandparents or great grandparents emigrated from? Or should there be 2 standards? One for native muslims and one for foreign-born muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stander Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 28 minutes ago, stander said: Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them. I didn't know that The French had banned them. Some French banned them. Most did not. And if they are in fact a political expression, are you saying that politics should only be practiced in private? Are you confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zendo Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2702 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 France being the country that upholds the freedom of speech more than most and then tries to ban certain styles of clothing due to their perception of what it represents. Pretty ridiculous and the French government I think have realised freedom of speech has probably contributed to a lot of the problems they have had recently with terrorism. That hebdo magazine being the catalyst. I'm not defending what happened I just think that magazine should have been reigned in a bit for fear of people who perhaps do not share the same tolerance. It's a sad world when you meet a french Algerian who denies being Algerian vehemently and yet it's so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Is it forgotten or ignored that the debate about banning the burka arose from the question of the legal right to hide facial identity in public by virtue of a religious adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not about any right to a choice in religious faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security risk and muslim or not can avoid identification using religious justifications. Even the staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the burka is a personal aspect and not a religious dictate. Does anyone defend the right to refuse to remove a motorcycle helmet or hood and dark glasses when challenged by police or when entering a building such as a Bank or Government office? To do so would be at risk! There have been many instances around the world where the excuse of the burka has been used to avoid indentification in matters of transgression of law minor or major. It is that aspect that has created the debate. I have many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female, would support the idea that the burka has some superior status over and above common law. It has just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the KKK who would daily roam in full public view and defend the right to wear a hood. Naturally there would have to be at least 10 of them to challenge 1 stroppy female follower of fashion Islam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2702 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said: Is it forgotten or ignored that the debate about banning the burka arose from the question of the legal right to hide facial identity in public by virtue of a religious adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not about any right to a choice in religious faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security risk and muslim or not can avoid identification using religious justifications. Even the staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the burka is a personal aspect and not a religious dictate. Does anyone defend the right to refuse to remove a motorcycle helmet or hood and dark glasses when challenged by police or when entering a building such as a Bank or Government office? To do so would be at risk! There have been many instances around the world where the excuse of the burka has been used to avoid indentification in matters of transgression of law minor or major. It is that aspect that has created the debate. I have many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female, would support the idea that the burka has some superior status over and above common law. It has just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the KKK who would daily roam in full public view and defend the right to wear a hood. Naturally there would have to be at least 10 of them to challenge 1 stroppy female follower of fashion Islam! If this was the case then a simple see through burka would be sufficient or even a burka with full face feature. Totally agree with that point you make but the middle ground is pretty obvious. I guess wearing too much makeup could be construed the same way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 A see through burka would probably be deemed inadequate for the intended purpose but maybe legal beagles could ursue the option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 37 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: Is it forgotten or ignored that the debate about banning the burka arose from the question of the legal right to hide facial identity in public by virtue of a religious adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not about any right to a choice in religious faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security risk and muslim or not can avoid identification using religious justifications. Even the staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the burka is a personal aspect and not a religious dictate. Does anyone defend the right to refuse to remove a motorcycle helmet or hood and dark glasses when challenged by police or when entering a building such as a Bank or Government office? To do so would be at risk! There have been many instances around the world where the excuse of the burka has been used to avoid indentification in matters of transgression of law minor or major. It is that aspect that has created the debate. I have many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female, would support the idea that the burka has some superior status over and above common law. It has just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the KKK who would daily roam in full public view and defend the right to wear a hood. Naturally there would have to be at least 10 of them to challenge 1 stroppy female follower of fashion Islam! But the burkini doesn't obstruct the view of the face so it isn't about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 No? So its only all about discrimination aimed at followers of Islam. So I am safe to start the Faith of the Hoody and dark Glasses ! Yehaa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: No? So its only all about discrimination aimed at followers of Islam. So I am safe to start the Faith of the Hoody and dark Glasses ! Yehaa ! Thanks for putting the emoji in there. Otherwise, how could we tell your comment was meant to be funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2702 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Unless I'm reading news features no one else I thought the basis of the ban on burka etc was based on subjugation of women not facial recognition. Your point about identity concealment makes more sense but that is not the basis of the stories I have been following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 The Hijab and Burkini are not considered a problem because they do not obscure the face any more than a typical headscarf in normal circumstance. However the full veiling with only eyeslits has the potential to disguise any individual, male or female. The subjugation of woman may be a populist aspect but given that the defendant in this French case was a woman who may admittedly have been defiant as due to adherence to subjugative influence it is the issue of identity that is the priority although appeal to the human rights issue may be deemed correctly supportive but contradictory to the similar issue were the Catholic organization officially disallows female priests ! So is the issue of the burka a matter of the obvious security aspect or is it just a false facet used in the internationally encouraged discrimination of a human right to religious choice? Both perhaps? One has legal justification. The other is.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTC Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 4 hours ago, stander said: Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them. If it is th public square, then it is not your square. At least not any longer. The days of the old white male reactionary telling others, particularly minorities what to do is over. People no longer accept marginalization by bigots and racists. Laws to allow this kind of bigotry are being repealed and challenged all across the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2702 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said: The Hijab and Burkini are not considered a problem because they do not obscure the face any more than a typical headscarf in normal circumstance. However the full veiling with only eyeslits has the potential to disguise any individual, male or female. The subjugation of woman may be a populist aspect but given that the defendant in this French case was a woman who may admittedly have been defiant as due to adherence to subjugative influence it is the issue of identity that is the priority although appeal to the human rights issue may be deemed correctly supportive but contradictory to the similar issue were the Catholic organization officially disallows female priests ! So is the issue of the burka a matter of the obvious security aspect or is it just a false facet used in the internationally encouraged discrimination of a human right to religious choice? Both perhaps? One has legal justification. The other is.......... Word of advice. Try to understand your publishing information which a cross section of the world is reading. In using your clever well articulated words/sentences you are simply preventing a lot of people from understanding your points. Surely a clever person with such good use of language can understand this and using simpler terms may actually benefit the reader as well as the author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambum Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Rc2702 said: Word of advice. Try to understand your publishing information which a cross section of the world is reading. In using your clever well articulated words/sentences you are simply preventing a lot of people from understanding your points. Surely a clever person with such good use of language can understand this and using simpler terms may actually benefit the reader as well as the author. Good point - I call it gobbledygook! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 5 hours ago, PTC said: If it is th public square, then it is not your square. At least not any longer. The days of the old white male reactionary telling others, particularly minorities what to do is over. People no longer accept marginalization by bigots and racists. Laws to allow this kind of bigotry are being repealed and challenged all across the US. More hatred of old white males being spewed out on the pages of TVF. The only group liberals have declared its perfectly alright to despise and insult and marginalize. Liberals don't have a problem with bigoted or racist practices, they just want it directed at the white males. You guys are certainly an angry bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now