only 2,000-or-so women in France actually wear the niqab or burka.

that's a quote from bbc. basically the french government is proving its useless once again. maybe if people are complaining about this then their unions won't strike and cripple the country. again.

also i grew up in a country were burqas were/are very commonplace and personally i hate the fucking things but this law seems pointless and racist.

edit: you mentioned the figure too. perhaps ill read the whole thing next time (:

i hate the fucking things but this law seems pointless and racist.

if people with some tribal background would run around naked in your country, would that be okay aswell cause you dont wanna be racist? where do you draw the line, what values and ideas of the main society do you force on other kind and what kind of integration do you expect? isnt that the real question...

it was normal where i grew up because it is part of the tradition. a law to outlaw 2000 people in a country of 65million is ridiculous considering most of these people are pretty reclusive due to their beliefs. perhaps if it was actually a large scale problem in france the law would be correct as it would be threatening the spirit of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, but as it stands it doesn't.

even though i hate the things i would never express a concern about it publicly unless, as i said above, it were a real problem - which it isn't.

and tribal people are welcome to run around wherever they want

the law would be correct as it would be threatening the spirit of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, but as it stands it doesn't.

well some people say it does, cause "these women" get forced to wear it and banning it is part of making sure that men and women in france are treated equally, though personally i doubt that this the main reason for those politicians that pushed the law and that it will actually help in those kind of situations women, but well its a fair point to some extend. we also dont allow husbands to hit their wifes

so less than 2000 are actually forced to wear them. i find it hard to believe that this law was passed to protect less than 2000 women from their religiously oppressive husbands. if they actually cared about that they could offer a solution that didn't offer public fines for your beliefs, such as a hotline (as exists for domestic violence). obviously they wouldn't waste money setting up a hotline to help less than 2000 women would they? nahhhhhhhhh, just make a system that fines people and classes them as criminals.

conclusion: the men should be punished for forcing them to wear it but the women who choose/accept to wear it shouldn't be punished. france is retarded

hmm yeah

if they actually cared about that they could offer a solution that didn't offer public fines for your beliefs, such as a hotline (as exists for domestic violence). obviously they wouldn't waste money setting up a hotline to help less than 2000 women would they?

but in reality you gotta wonder if those women would actually use such help. its not that easy

if they don't want help they can play ninja all day for all i care, but it's still wrong to punish the very very very small minority of the population that choose to wear burqas

should pass a law to ban hipster glasses while we're at it

Fight the German inside of you - is it any easier for any victim of domestic abuse?

Let me be very very clear here - any woman being forced to wear a Burqa is a victim of domestic abuse. The same way that any woman being forced to have sex or being assaulted by their partner is equally a victim of domestic abuse. These women should all be treated as victims and given support consistently yet individually.

So can we please toss out that argument as a non starter.

We're then onto the question of whether an individual has a right to wear whatever the hell they like or whether the state can mandate what clothing is socially acceptable.

This would make a nice flow chart. If yes move to full ban. If no, and you think the state should only enforce power over an individual for a justifiable reason follow the chart...

The police in the UK have powers to compel people wearing clothing covering their face (i.e. balaclava, scarf or yes a burqa) to reveal themselves if they're creating a public disorder / suspected of carrying out a criminal offence and can arrest them if they refuse. If the worry is of a criminal nature then surely that's a better targetted fairer system to use? Rather that criminalising a lawful section of society.

It's an absurd law.

Fight the German inside of you - is it any easier for any victim of domestic abuse?

Let me be very very clear here - any woman being forced to wear a Burqa is a victim of domestic abuse. The same way that any woman being forced to have sex or being assaulted is equally a victim of domestic abuse. These women should all be treated as victims and given support consistently yet individually.

So can we please toss out that argument as a non starter.

first of all i am not saying that i think this is not domestic abuse or less serious or whatever, i just pointed out that creating a hotline is probably not going to be enough to help those kind of women (same goes for those who suffer from domestic violence.) its better than nothing, but would not really be enough

i also made it clear that it is not my argument, but rather an argument you regularly hear^^
i would agree that the argument is pretentious but i also cant deny that it will probably "help" some women. (dont read any more into it than what i wrote, i dont think the effect is big, or outweights the cons, or whatever... just saying that there might be some good in it. so "can we please toss out that argument as a non starter." seems a bit one sided)

We're then onto the question of whether an individual has a right to wear whatever the hell they like or whether the state can mandate what clothing is socially acceptable.

we already kind of do, dont we? public nudity is not allowed. and this is not about "fashion" either

we already kind of do, dont we? public nudity is not allowed.

Won't be too long.

>implying thats a bad thing

Yeah, quote some laws from the soon-to-be totalitarian UK, that'll help. :/

The Lib Dems are pushing through wholesale reforms of labours totalitarian laws based on the Lib Dems 'Freedom Bill' - it's getting better.

But at least we've not this racist shite enacted into law.

Sigh, u can hardly go up to any islamic male in France and be like "hi, i expect you make your wife wear a burka, here have a fine" now can you?

This is the only possible way they can actually banish this medieval shit , while it is certainly not ideal it is the best option around

who said anything about any islamic male

conclusion: the men should be punished for forcing them to wear it but the women who choose/accept to wear it shouldn't be punished. france is retarded

the men who force women to wear them.

france has a population of 65million

3.5 million of those are muslim - 6% of the population

around 2000 of these 3.5million wear burqas that's 0.06% of the total muslim population in france

not all of these women are forced to wear them but for argument's sake lets say they are and they are all married, that would make 2000 men who force women to wear burqas.

once again 0.06% of the muslim population of france (0.003% of the entire population of france btw)

clearly im talking about all islamic men in france aren't i?

Clearly that also demonstrates what i meant.

I actually made an error in my post though, the "expect" shouldve been suspect perhaps that wouldve been clearer

it really doesn't but you clearly have no useful knowledge on the subject so im out

good night sir

You can't punish those men because you cannot identify them very easily ... seems rather trivial to grasp

wow trivial nice word

lets face it, this doesn't solve shit. if anything those women will now not be allowed to leave the house at all. which is ok if you're french because now you won't have to worry about those ninjas carrying bombs.

i hate the fucking things but this law seems pointless and racist.

What race do a muslim have?

talking about my ayrabs

Being an Arab doesn't mean you're a muslim, islamophobia is what you're looking for.

most muslims in france are arabs.
islamophobia, xenophobia, racism whatever. be pedantic

precise != pedantic

im arab, but im not muslim and i find this offensive to my people therefore it isn't islamophobia is it

do you people wear burkas too?

ye all the time bro, all the time

i find it offensive because it stifles freedom, it doesn't make this polephobia.

use xenophobia if islamophobia is too specific

no it just makes you a moron

thanks

I think its kinda stupid for the handful of women who wear full-face veil on their own ( even if they all did 2000 is ridiculously low ).
Can't say I really feel concerned though as my attitude towards it has always been " I don't care ", not because I'm tolerant, open-minded or some politically correct thing, just because I don't give a flying fuck about people's beliefs/traditions/blabla as long as they don't bore me with them.

Is it democratic?

Not really, if it persecutes a minority.

What part of Democracy don't you understand?

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights.

Not when they fly planes into buildings and would destroy you at the touch of a button to live in their brainwashed world. IN YOUR COUNTRY.

We've shown a million times more humanity and understanding than them (and slowly we are starting to see the foolishness in those ways because they always want more and more segregation for their own kind, the only thing that benefits a muslim is a muslim), in their country you will be killed for not even sharing their ideals on a RELIGION. They are the bane of the modern world. They can't even kill an animal in an humane way for food.

Secondly, Burkas HAVE been used as disguise methods by their OWN people to commit crimes and escape the country under religious lies, so they have only THEMSELVES to blame for TARNISHING their faith.

It only takes a small minority to cause a problem, so if they feel victimised, they can blame their own people.

yes those welsh bastards need to be watched carefully.

I fail to see how this is persecution. These women have no identity that's plainly visible, aside from an alleged woman wearing a burka, when they walk the streets. That specific matter is probably the main issue here.

I agree with Caroline Fourest on this one, but cba to write her arguments here, maybe I'll do it later :p

or just drop some links (if they are not french)

Just looked and I could only find French links (see this video interview for example, and this article).

i had to

cool game, although i prefer

Yeah i wanna see the crazy sand ppl there face before they detonate

Think it this way: isn't burka promoting Égalité? You have burka, so there's no difference between pretty woman and ugly woman. Now, there should be a law to force men to wear burka too, so handsome men and ugly men are equal too.
And so on and on
In the end ppl will introduce a law to cut all penis to the same length ;)

THIS is why burqas/niqabs are a problem.

and also because a lot of the chicks who wear them are fucking sluts anyway (in arab countries at least) (:

Doesn't matter if it respects laïcité and/or the freedom of cult, the law was just made so it's unpopular since day one. Today the cops won't even apply it.

So that's just a fail and money wasted.

It's nobody elses business what fashion a person chooses to wear, and to make a law against one particular subset of society based on race is self evidently racist.

will read that later (have a plus beforehand)

Its not racist because....

A) The people wearing it have mostly been brainwashed and manipulated into wearing it to begin with. See stockholm syndrome for the principal of liking something you would probably despise under neutral conditions. Almost all of them are in forced marriages to men who view it as power symbol in their deluded little circles

B) Muslims have already abused the clothing for escapism and avoiding detection, so they've proven that not only is it effective for doing so, but they've ruined any credibility of the clothing by their own people abusing it. If they banned those full face hoodies and scarves tomorrow I would hold the same view. Minorities jsut scream racism because its so effective, thankfully people are wising up.

At the end of the day if you are a minority and the majority of serious crimes are being created or threatened by the minority then its acceptable to be more biased towards them. Its not really a white mans problem now is it, so racial profiling seems acceptable.

Yes its racist under traditional definitonos, but if these things are not done it will just cause anarchy.

Life is all about rank and hierachy. You don't go upto a 7 ft cage fighter and pick a fight.

You don't go to another country and openly despise its rules, values and people, yet many muslims do just that and are nothing more than sleeping pawns for a more sinister purpose.
Those that don't... gee i dunno when was the last time you saw non radical muslims marching through the streets showing their extremist patrons all the great values and freedom they inherited?
You don't

Many of them are nothing more than chess pieces in a holy war and will act on instruction when the time is right. And those that don't will be forced to pick a side and by which time it might all be about colour.

Its not racist because....

...

Yes its racist under traditional definitonos, but if these things are not done it will just cause anarchy.

If you're going to argue with yourself, please stop using such shitty arguments.

Still replying based on the person huh. The point i made was perfectly valid. Rules and Regulations are subject to change, racism is subjective, if 99.9% of the crimes/problems are being committed by a certain demographic, its not racist to profile them more and address the things which contribute to it.

As for shitty arguments...
http://www.esreality.com/files/misc/2011/8203...d-liar.swf (CLICKABLE SWF)

I have already shown how pointless discussing anything with you is.
(sorry John Romero has shown)

I was going to counter your points, but then I kept reading and found that you instantly did it for me. Pointing out the obvious to you is an effort in futility.

I think this warrants a screenshot of a post or even a screenshot movie. (with keyboard cat and all)

Sometimes it's worth of looking the ethymology of word, such as racism, before using it. Banning burqas or e-meters or whatnot refers to religion, not a race.

In this context they're synonymous.

how?

no. if the culture is inseparable from the race then they cannot be properly integrated into a modern society, so fuck 'em.

huh?

The muslim population in europe will only ever result in civil war so you won't ever see losing any sleep on their demise.

as a means to "protect" women from being forced to wear Muslim full-face veils such as the burka or the niqab.

... by forcing everyone to not wear one. Now, they can't even if they want to. This is just giving them one right by taking another away.

racist country , nothing new

Muslims doesn't have anything to do with race, it's a goddamn religion, something spiritual and not a race. There for not racist, islamophobic sure but not racist.

It's not a fashion choice, it's an antiquated custom stemming from a pathological, patriarchal culture that perceives women as property (at worst) and inferior to men (at best).

Most of them will defend their right to wear them, but only because they've been brainwashed into thinking they must wear them. They have stiff social behavioural patterns embedded into them so much, they won't acknowledge how much they limit their own personal freedom. It's bullshit.

However, i do agree that the handling of this situation is pretty shit. They should be made aware that they can dress in whichever way the want, not forced to do it one way or the other.

waiting to see jamerio's take on this.
oh he already replied, was so short I missed it. :(

was expecting a lot more aswell :(

yeah, i couldn't even find it after tourist pointed it out. it's like an optical illusion

why encourage him?

cuz you can't spell encourage without rage

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=2065444#pid2065444

246 votes to 1

holy shit

one of the thing that really struck me aswell
i mean they cant all be idiots... probably

one has to kind of wonder what kind of climate makes that kind of extreme consensus possible, kind of

Rational thinking does. I for one am far from an islam hater but that shit just has to go even when not taking into account religion

How can one expect these women to ever function as a contributing member in western society being dressed like that? It just will not happen, so they are essentially parasites on western social security systems. That alone would be reason enough for it to get banished

Fanaticism leads to these sort of results, not rational thinking.

A well founded position there, so in other words i am an anti islam fundamentalist?:p

I don't know. I am sort of an islam hater and I am against that law.

well, my point was that such a consensus cannot be accidental. it would be paranoid and ridiculous to think all those people acted irrationally or stupidly. there has to be another broader explanation.

it's the fallacy of thinking the property of the individual is responsible for acting a certain way instead of looking at the situation that individual is placed in as a guide for understanding their action

By my calculations: one of them wasn't

but alot of them can be afraid of potentially looking like idiots...

I found it totaly normal and it is not controversial unless you are to concidere extremists. In Islamic country you are forced to wear stupid shit on your face if you'r a women.

Islam destroyed prety much every country that was converted. Peeps forcing women to wear such a shit are mental criminals that need to grow the fuk up and think by themself holy shit!

My father is Iranian and so is half of my family so don't tell me i'm racist! Religions must all dies!

Good.

Rights of women > rights of religion.

It's actually just a cultural thing that was adopted by religion.

you're right about the burqa being cultural. my muslim source tells me the koran enforces something to the effect of a hijab. i've heard different things, but he's the most honest, intelligent and serious believer i've come across

From what I've read, it has no actual religious ties at all. If he can cite where it does, I'd like to see it.

what do you mean "at all". clearly there are some rules about how to dress, to cover up and not be exposed etc. just a question of what exactly this means

i won't truble him for references i think. in any case, the meta-point is that a serious religious, intelligent person of that faith comes to that conclusion; that covering the hair is most wise

i also came from the perspective that there was "nothing" in the koran to support this, from all kinds of relativists and liberals, until i asked my friend directly.

my own 5min analysis just now gives me these two quotes:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, [... etc.] (Qur'an 33:58–59)

Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed. [...] (Qur'an 33:58–59)

Then wiki goes on to the next section:

"Other Muslims take a relativist approach to ħijāb. They believe that the commandment to maintain modesty must be interpreted with regard to the surrounding society. What is considered modest or daring in one society may not be considered so in another."

and so on into infinity with motivated reasoning

That seems to point to the khimar, and would need some twisting of interpretation to point to the burqa.

yes

You have a point a burqa is a personal choice but is just one of those preferred things you could say

That's pure cunt. What about freedom of religion? Or freedom of expression... freedom of clothing/fashion? Or... even better, why not make a law requiring all women be naked (except ugly/fat one's)?

Freedom of religion is a tricky one, along with any freedom really, but I mean people aren't launching wars over freedom of speech.

I like how France surrendered before they were even attacked. It's like a preemptive surrender. What do you think, Osama? Europe and the United States are terrified of Islam, despite freedom of religion being so prevalent. Is it about Islam, or is it the same old story of one religion persecuting another?

IIRC, some states in the U.S. have banned low-rise jeans. Also read about an Italian town that banned mini-skirts as well as low-rise jeans.

It's not about religion in these parts of the world but rather someone else deciding what you should wear. Weird contrast!

IIRC, some states in the U.S. have banned low-rise jeans.

Completely false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963512/ns/us_news-weird_news/

America has hundreds of silly bills that go through the system every day. They don't pass, as they have no legal standing.

I know a lot of bills do get rejected but the saggy pants and low-rise issue has been taken rather seriously. Seek to 00:58 ...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHCVX5SBVaQ&feature=fvsr

Yeah, but the bill will never become law. Even if it ever managed to, it wouldn't be more than a day before the ACLU sued.

They had a british muslim on radio one news who said "if the law was passed in the UK I would leave", I secretly thought to myself "that would make a lot of British people happy..".

Not me though, I don't mind if they wear burqas.

The guy is always on the money.

I might not fully agree, but I always lol @ his comparisons.

whatever, we can still walk in the street hiding our face with our hands.

tru

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/index.html

I hate public polls like this. People try and draw conclusions from them and so often they are open to abuse.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/...vbgm9LBFjg

This stuff has already has been documentated on a far more impartial basis.

Quite often when things like this happen a minority will spam it around their social circles and get everyone to vote, to give the perception that somehow their ideal is a desired one.
WHen the millions of others who would vote against it don't even know the poll exisits BECAUSE its not as important to them as it is the others.

I found that poll through 4chan :D

it seems to me, just intuitively now, that the best correlation for if a country wants to ban burqa is the percentage of muslims living there

lets see if that's right:

Majorities in Germany (71 percent), Britain (62 percent) and Spain (59 percent) said they would support a burqa ban in their own countries

france 7 percent muslims,
germany 5,
uk 4.6
spain 2.3

in the United States, the opposite was true, with two-thirds of Americans saying they were against a ban on full veils in public

usa, 2.3


.. well!

.

Fags use sun glasses for what?

I thought they were to stop you from being blinded by the sun, and also for perving on chicks.

Their eyes would be too round for you anyway m8

.

When people will open their eyes and accept/understand/whatever that religion is pure bullshit and the most retarded thing in the human history, this will be a huge step for all.

........

thanks for the contribution, interesting points youre making

My on feelings and knowledge towards this will only get me flamed.

and thats a reason not to voice your opinion? o0
anyway, i would like to hear them

Well I have a saying, It won't do you any good to teach a wall how to write rather it would be better to teach a poet.

pm me with your guess about what it means..

you are not a genius surround by morons that you need to question before you share your wisdom...

contribute with your opinion based on these "feelings and knowledge" or dont, its not like i am asking you to have an intellectual threesome with jamerio and vedic, stop posting those self-righteous comments

you don't get it.

yeah that must be it -.-

I meant you didn't get the saying
also I'm not completely against banning the burqa because it isn't necessary.

I meant you didn't get the saying

yes, and i find it amusing that you think so based on my comment. maybe you didnt get what i wrote?
in any case, lets end this and both think the other guy is lame

meh it's probably the language barrier

I translated arabic to english and it probably wasn't too good

but I meant that most people are so stubborn about their beliefs and knowledge insisting each are right and it just brings more unneeded issues

also my view on this is that banning the burqa is not too big of an issue but the burqa is usually a personal choice for woman as there isn't any islamic rules about hiding the face but it is something common in very religious families , also women have to dress modestly in Islam but it doesn't mean they can't wear what they like color and style wise as long as it goes by the islamic way of dressing

and also men have to cover their lower bodies from the hip untill the knees

Right, and u obviously still live in Allah's little paradise where women don't get forced into it at all...

I'm sure there is a small minority who will by their own free will choose to wear the damn thing and just for that reason this law is flawed. But really, hurting the vast minority seems rather appriopriate in this case

yeah the law doesn't exactly enforce the dress code where I live , it is a personal choice but the optimal choice from a religious point of view would be to wear what is allowed.

and besides it's usually the very very religious ones that tend to make their daughters and wives wear burqas even though there isn't any solid proof that the burqa is necessary , but the hijab is considered important on a very wide scale and at least in my family and the families I speak to the girls and women are just encouraged to wear a hijab.

I can live with the hijab and all , it's just the burqa that i have a real problem with since as you say that tends to get forced upon people by fundamentalist males.

It's not just the males forcing it it's also peer pressure and what not but the burqa as I said is not exactly necessary form my knowledge at least and also the sheikhs and moftis have different views on it.

also some women like them and decorate them and some just feel better wearing them.

ur stupid

u got it

lol u nailed it

Burqa should be a enforced for ugly ppl

ive stopped caring anymore if you speak up you get throw the basic things as racist discrimination etc

if you try to take any kind of action youl get killed

in the end muslims will win when it comes to that and if i still live ill rather kill myself then relive the stone age while being controlled by delusional muslims

No they won't and you should not keep quiet. This is what they want.

Poltically they will threaten you with being a racist.
if that does not work then they will threaten you with death and fear.

You're sad if you would tather kill yourself than fight something.

Holland is a pathetic country youl give up eventually

I don't particularly care about the burka, but covering ones face in public is wrong. It's the public space and one shouldn't be allowed to hide who you are. The same goes for disguises, unless it is for something like legal work.

Of course in your private space you can wear what you want.

It's the public space and one shouldn't be allowed to hide who you are. The same goes for disguises, unless it is for something like legal work.
Why is that?

bank robbery? rape? murder?

How effective is an eye witness in a police lineup, when you can't see anyone?

So I suppose you would be in favour of everyone running around with license plates on their backs, just in case police needs to do some work?

there's a huge range between a police state and accepting every nuance of every primitive "culture". I choose to live in that range, like the rest of the developed world would like to.

there's a huge difference between covering your face in public and committing a crime

there is a difference, but in many cases they are closely related

So? If people often use cars as a getaway vehicle after committing a crime, should we ban cars too?

no. I need cars. I don't need stupid shit over my face so it's ok to ban it.

and I mean the stupid shit should be banned, not my face. my face should not be banned.

so people ALWAYS use hands to hold a gun when robbing a bank, maybe we should start chopping the bastards off.

you could have easily said that, and the validity of your argument would have been about the same

There's this country called Singapore, maybe you've heard of it, they do things like that.

Yes, it would. Do you see now how retarded your argument is?

erm... no?

I'm not in the mood for getting trolled, so eot.

If there is any basis of trust I will put in my fellow man, it is that he will identify himself so that I know who he is. This is an ancient thought, which is why even in middle eastern countries males don't wear shit over their faces.

You are a bit delusional, sorry.

really? what about (happened recently here, person won the trial) let's say... an anti-nazi rally where a bunch of nazis turn up with their cameras to take pictures of persons to identify and terrorize later while the police does no more than trying to prevent a clash.

you don't want people taking part in that rally to be able to hide their faces? to my own surprise a german court disagrees with you.

btw, cops are allowed to wear balaclavas when on the job which eventually eliminates any way to identify them (same situations in the uk, read up on the tomlinson trial).

Same with the anti-scientology protests a couple years ago but these are exceptions. usually you're not allowed to cover your face while you're protesting against something in Germany.

This is a bit off topic but it's shocking to me that it's acknowledged that Scientology is dangerous yet the government isn't doing anything against them.

Just make it so that you can apply for permission or something like that.

apply for a permission to be part of a rally, really?

i was about to make an argument comparing this to online anonymity, but it seems to me we wouldn't be on the same side there too, so hm.. :)

if the recent gov shakeups taught us anything it should be the value of being able to anonymously voice our opinion about political matters, not the opposite (imo).

Maybe it can be part of having to apply for the rally in the first place. (Which i believe most countries have in place anyway) Honestly this is a sub issue and could be easily accommodated.

apply for a rally? :( do you think people applied for rallies in yemen, lebanon or egypt?

what do you think would have happened if they indeed had to?

Strange, I didn't see anyone wearing masks during those protests?

I don't know why you are talking about this, it's common sense.

Guys wearing masks protesting something = fine

Guys wearing masks walking into a bank = wrong

I never said anything about a black and white law without exceptions.

do you realize what happened to those who didn't protect their anonymity during protests like these and got caught?

what if a counter-revolution takes place, what do you think they will do with those people? "you were brave not to wear a mask, here have a clap on the back for your actions - it's all good"? not really.

people did not wear masks simply because they were inexperienced both with organizing an event like that and with whatever will follow should they not succeed and they will get taught a harsh lesson if the tide turns.

walking into a bank with a mask is forbidden already, you can't even do that in a liquor shop or a gas station, why would we need such a law?
besides, laws are not "black and white"? i beg to differ, or rather my limited experience with "the law" taught me otherwise.

there's no better protection for any state than its laws, especially those that forbid or threaten political dissent, which is pretty much what you intend.

What about disfigured people? Remember that woman who had her face ripped off and wears a veil?

That is a by-law, in my ideal world you would be able to apply for permission.

Gl in your police state.

would there be an Ugliness Committee that decides these things?

The law isn't directly directed towards niqab/burqas, otherwise it would be racist. If I understood well, the law forbids people to walk on the street with hidden faces, exept for canivals or other artistic shows. This is officialy a matter of security.

This law is also directed towards extremists in demonstrations that cover their faces and walk along the crowd to bash some participants and / or damage shops, cars, whatever.

So, in France when you walk on the streets, one should at least be able to see your face. When you are at home, you do what the hell you want.

Also, although I'm not racist or whatever, I personally think too much muslims would destroy France's culture and I want it to remain like it is...or even like it was before. Not because I consider it's a better culture than another, but because it has to be respected as any other culture.

You can go in the street with complete veil if you want, from head to toe, but your face has to be visible in public spaces. I don't see why people whine about that shit.

learn what "racist" means

Because the midget president himself has stated the law is aimed at the burka?

Given the parameters of your point does this mean the law also includes sunglasses? The eyes are a key factor in recognising someone.

I don't care what the president said. I take the law as it's written, and it doesn't say it concerns niqab and burkas only.

It's quite a useless law anyway, but I don't see how it is a problem.

Also, this sunglasses comparison is lame, you can recognize someone even with sunglasses, plus I don't see guys with sunglasses refusing to show their face without them.

systems designed for comparing human faces have trouble with people wearing eyeglasses

...and a basecap plus a scarf, heh. here we go, this is how it works in .de for a while now.

That s clearly not racism. In France, it doesn't matter if you are black or yellow or brown or normal ! ©

or normal?

That was funny, but I am not sure if that was your intetion.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/81364737/

context

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_140_17-counterproductive-public-service-announcements_p16#16

more context

Oh yeah? Tell me that when you have a black president!!

You can't deny there's something wrong with France these days, our extremist party is actually winning the polls (by getting the votes of even black people etc) and we have a good amount of total dickheads at the head of the government (including the President itself) that make ESR look like a haven of intelligence and refinement devoid of any trolling.

I'm not surprised one bit.

YEAH WHATEVER JAMERIO

the edit gave it away this time.

You're not the sharpest tool in the family, are you?
I don't even agree with Jamerio on this point and I actually see this as racism and hate my government for it.

But whatever :<

the word you are looking for is perhaps xenophobia, certainly not racism

Yeah well, the two words are confused all the time these days so I end up being confused as well.

Thing is, it should not be forbid to wear whatever u want (aslong as its decent, ie not naked) in the streets or whatever public area. Or soon they will enforce wearing uniforms in the street wtf ?

But to absolutely forbid any kind of veil or whatever that covers your face more than partialy in schools during classes or when you work in the administration or whatever sounds just about normal to me.

I dont think I could stand going to the post and seeing that the guy at the other side of the desk wears even a simple cap. That's already kind of offensive in my opinion.
Same kinda goes for any sort of religious signs (christian cross, kipa, etc).

I honestly think religions should be kept to the private area. I don't mind either if people would freely wear their religious signs in public areas. Everyone should be free to wander around outside the way he wants, aslong as it isn't really intended to be offensive or that it is not really culturally accepted (yet).

totally agree

muslim's

do not understand anyone's motivation for banning something like this.

i don't see how these things are in most cases anything but tradition.

the little girl eagerly awaiting her 12th birthday, so she can finally wear a burga and walk around like her mother does, is in no way brainwashed.
its the same thing as women wearing long hair or ponytails, only that it's a piece of clothing, and not your hair.

i understand that it can in some cases be considered domestic violence, but most western civilizations do (and should) pride themselves on the fact that they do not surpress minorities. rules like this should not be generalized, even if it is very hard to distinguish. some women's rights are being offended by this ruling.

Xenophobia for sure

This isn't xenophobic at all. Rather, it seems to be a measure to prevent exploitation of the fact that people can be completely disguised in public and get away with it -- namely, to restrict possible means for terrorist acts in a continent that has been hit by them on multiple occasions.

It's a bit tactless, sure, but I'm pretty sure there is a necessity behind all this. If inconveniencing a couple thousand Muslim women living in France means a couple thousand French citizens don't get killed tomorrow by someone armed with explosives on a public train who's disguised in a burka, then by all means.

The saddest part is I think you actually believe this.

Love long America. :/

The saddest part is that you're completely ignoring that Britain and Spain, both of which are very close if not adjacent to France, have fallen victim to bombings. Oh, and that you say I'm American rather than Canadian. Keep deluding yourself, though. :)

btw, it's "long live ____", not "love long ____". You should get your idioms right before you say them...

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Also, I meant America as in continent. It seems as if some of the "War on Terror" propaganda has gotten through the border.

I'm not really sure how essential liberty is being violated here when the matter at hand is a lack of visual identification among the masses. These Muslim women agree to a social contract when they decide to live in a country of many that is ruled by many. If they don't like that they can't wear burkas in spite of their ability to access mosques at anytime that mosques are open to the public as well as pray as much as they want, whenever they want, not to mention the French people's general approval of their religion, then they should go live somewhere else. It's quite simple, really.

Also, Franklin died over 200 years ago, back when most countries did not have to tackle the issue of multiculturalism and cultural assimilation (or lack thereof). To summarize, your quote is irrelevant to the 21st century.

To summarize, your quote is irrelevant to the 21st century.

I have nothing more to say to you.

Since Franklin died, the concept of essential liberty has changed significantly as we've gone through the Industrial Age and now are in the middle of the Information Age. Within the past 150 years, tools such as the automobile and computer were both invented and redefined how society is run and how individuals live their lives. Not to mention social perceptions of certain matters like mass immigration and living among foreign people have significantly changed. So how is this quote, in its particular context, relevant to the 21st century? The general concept of the social contract has conformed with the times -- times that have changed since the 18th century, in case you haven't noticed -- and so essential needs have changed, let alone essential liberties, and so I'm wondering what you're trying to get at here that I haven't done so already.

Also, note that the only aspect of human rights that can be considered to be violated in this instance is the right to wear what you please among the public and in the name of (Muslim) religion, especially considering that absolutely no other facet of Muslim religion was affected by this new law. Would you really say that that right in particular is a crucial human right to have? Not to mention that people say we should be tolerable of other races, religions, etc. But, on the flip side, why can't the people who practice said religions return the favour and be tolerable of other countries' policies? Keep in mind that there are workarounds for the women affected by this, so in the end, I have to ask: what in the fuck are you being such a baby about?

Anonymity is crucial in a society which acknowledges freedom of the individual.

lol...never have I heard a more shallow use of the term anonymity. You really don't know how to think outside the box, do you?

Also, didn't you have nothing more to say to me? lol@poles.

Think everybody on this thread should reread advent's above two paragraphs (and block out his name from attribution if that helps!). Quotes like Franklin's aren't etched in stone as some Platonic, timeless ideals -- they either apply or they don't. Tons of his quotes always apply: Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

none of the 7/7 london or 3/11 madrid bombers wore veils and every one of them had been identified. whilst it's true that it COULD be used as a disguise to mask an idenity, the fact that it hasn't shows that it's clearly not 'efficient'. on the contrary, surely wearing a veil/burka on the underground whilst carrying a rucksack would draw more suspicion than being one of the 99.99% of people who don't wear a veil?

You don't need a burka when blowing yourself up because its irrelevant and becaue this country has allowed so many imigrants here they do not need to disguise themselves in anyway.

But on less serious crimes where the criminal wishes to escape with their life, then its effective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40937...olice.html

LoL I was thinking the same thing.

europeans should send arabians back to their homeland
they reproduce like hell and now they come to live on our territories, and most of those who come in Europe are not highly educated
what they were not able to do by force (turkish empire) they are doing now by translating human rights into domestic territories invasion

They're perfectly welcome as long as they make a real effort to be a valid contributing member of society.

My family has been friends with a turkish immigrant family for a long time, they are the most friendly people you'll ever meet and are always willing to help with anything we ask.

But a lot of them are utterly useless indeed :P

ahhhhh i accidentally plussed this bullshit

i'll return the sentiment

;)

wish if-22 was here to take the +back

witty

Not everyone wants to spend 80 % of their life arguing on esr. So think +back all you will ;)

sif i would want to argue with you

yeah i understand, wouldn't get any plusses from doing that

trying to start an argument here after all?
but thanks for admiring my e-penis

Could you define for me what is a "Contributing member of society"?

Furthermore, how do you contribute to society?

I'm not trolling you but I'd like to know what you think nonetheless.

I guess it's arguable as to what that really means

But from a Belgian pov i would say doing something that does not involve collecting wellfare 24/7. Since our country is considered a safe haven for slackers all over the globe.

I remember the other day in a super market, when someone with a burqa passed by and scared a lil 5 year old girl and started crying pointing the phantasmagoric silhouette.

This can't be good for your skin, even less for your eyes. It's a matter of logic. Why would you wear something that fucks your eyes up eventually, and makes you smell like shit on summer. Imagine a really hot place like Spain on summer, and you pass by near someone with a burqa. Yeah they smell like shit, sorry.

It's a matter of logic and pragmatism. If you went to an island lost of all religious traditions, and you told them look, what would you rather wear, this (a burqa) or that (a regular t-shirt). You can guess the answer. No one in a neutral mindset would choose a burqa. They just have been brainwashed into believing they must wear a burqa for religious reasons (as always)

I mean look at this fucking photo:

http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2010/09/burqas.jpg

The point isn't what you want to wear - it's whether you have any right to impose on what anyone else should wear.

I think ugg boots are shite and anyone wearing sandals should be shot - should that be enacted into law?

On a pragmatic way, the only usefulness of that piece of cloth seems like it could be handy if you were to walk in the middle of a sandstorm, but we don't live on the middle of fucking deserts, so it's simply time to move on.

We are on the 21st century, not 12th.

In any case, it has an impact on me when I go at places in the summer and they are smelling like nasty, rotting shit swearing everywhere.
They also scare the shit out of lil kids.
Finally, I can't believe most of these girls genuinely like it and they aren't being forced to wear it by their husbands.

I don't see how forcing women to wear burqa's is any worse than forcing women not to wear them. It's nothing but one value-system (religion), forcing itself on another.

If France was legit about helping women, they would make laws prohibiting men from forcing women to wear whatever the clothing might be.

Then again, forcing attractive women to be naked sounds pretty good... it's not rape, after-all, it's the LAW. That's right, law is always correct, and law-breakers are always wrong... always criminal.

Legalize weed!!! You god-damn cocksucking cuntlickers. Fucking piece of shit people, who think it's ok to torture people over weed. Fuck you and your horseshit laws.

I hate posts like that. they always ultimately make me lose faith in mankind.

"civilised" humanity is doomed

the reality is far worse, dont let these threads fool you

I read "france bans the burger" :o

lol so did I! Was expecting to see the name "McDonald's" all over his this thread.

oh yeah I forgot that removing burqas will totally stop bombings

I CBA to read all comments, lol.

But to make it clear, in france the nationalists is more and more important (of in vandalism, drugs selling etc...) then our dumbo gouvernement tought that doing an useless law about burqua would make the tards who vote for the nationalists changing their minds and vote back for the gouvernement's political party (UMP).

the suprem court has censured the law (cause of the evident discrimination). then the gouvernement said that the law is made for that noone has hidden face (security).

This is just a political law, nothing more, like 90% of useless laws that are voted here. and for those who don't understand why "The bill was passed by the French Parliament last year, with the Senate voting by 246 votes to one in favour" it's because the "senat" is made of majority ppl from the UMP. Yes, no counter power in here dudes ;)

then you can't be in favour or not cause it was voted only in the way to earn votes lols.

thanks for decrypting my english aha.