Muslim cry-babies whine of 'assault on human rights'

[Lozzer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html

Lolz

[Gonzo]

Such insight you have brought to this topic, tell me more - it's all provocative and stuff.

[Super Aguri]

The last thing they care about is human rights. I'm not a fan of the burka ban, but if it were up to me instead of banning the burka, the problem would be halted at it's roots. Religious indoctrination.

[Gonzo]

I'm not a fan of the burka ban, but if it were up to me instead of banning the burka, the problem would be halted at it's roots.

What problem and how would you 'halt it at it's roots'?

[Lozzer]

Such insight you have brought to this topic, tell me more - it's all provocative and stuff.

Oh it is, isn't it? Well essentially, legislation which has passed in France developed into actual law today. Specifically, it deals with the wearing of skee masks, full face vales etc and everything else that conceals the face. It just so happens that a minority of Muslim women in France wear the full veil, and they're crying 'OMGZ ZIONIST OPPRESSORS!!1' and that their civil liberties are under assault. However, there's nothing stopping them from wearing their pepper pots in places of worship, just in public places. Men who impose the veil upon them risk a fine of 30,000 euros. I'd like similar laws materialise here.

[Gonzo]

Such insight you have brought to this topic, tell me more - it's all provocative and stuff.

Oh it is, isn't it? Well essentially, legislation which has passed in France developed into actual law today.

Yes, a law that singles out a minority of people, in aregion of the world where there is a good deal of institutionalized anti-islamic sentiment, as there is in the United States and throughout the Western World.

Specifically, it deals with the wearing of skee masks, full face vales etc and everything else that conceals the face. It just so happens that a minority of Muslim women in France wear the full veil,

Essentially, then, they are being discriminated against for their choice of clothing as it pertains to their culture.

and they're crying 'OMGZ ZIONIST OPPRESSORS!!1'

They are protesting, indeed, against the censorship of a person's freedom of religion and their freedom to express that. If you allow the government to take away from one group - you would be a hypocrite if you were to criticize them for any other attack on individual freedoms. For example, an Atheist's right to wear a shirt that says "Fuck God" or a gay person's right to hang a rainbow pride flag outside their door. This is the first step in abusing any other minority and singling them out.

and that their civil liberties are under assault.

They are, they have constitutional rights like anyone else. Such a law is unconstitutional and should be protested by all people who believe in free speech, not just muslims.

However, there's nothing stopping them from wearing their pepper pots in places of worship, just in public places.

How does it hurt another person if a woman wears a burka in public? How does that infringe on any other person's rights? What purpose does this law have, rationally?

Men who impose the veil upon them risk a fine of 30,000 euros. I'd like similar laws materialise here.

See, this is a different matter. If a man is forcing a woman to wear it - he is infringing on her individual freedoms and such a thing should not be allowed, but to ban the burka altogether is not fair to those who wear strictly because of their beliefs. You may not believe it is the 'right' thing for a woman to do, but how would it make you better than the man forcing her to wear it to say she could not at all - even by her own will.

It is an oppressive law against women and muslims, just as forcing another to wear a uniform or religious garb is an oppressive act.

[Lozzer]

Hey, it's related to their religious liberty: but why should a secular government accommodate the wearing of such a garment in banks, civil buildings like courts, an so on? They don't permit 'hoodies', people wearing motorcycle helmets, and other such types of attire designed to conceal the face, and in many cases, identity. And it only applies to two types of veil, both of which aren't religious requirements, but often imposed by a family or member or cultural pressure.

[Gonzo]

Hey, it's related to their religious liberty: but why should a secular government accommodate the wearing of such a garment in banks, civil buildings like courts, an so on? They don't permit 'hoodies', people wearing motorcycle helmets, and other such types of attire designed to conceal the face, and in many cases, identity. And it only applies to two types of veil, both of which aren't religious requirements, but often imposed by a family or member or cultural pressure.

Is there a higher crime rate for people who wear burkas in public? Is there probable cause besides stereotyping an entire group as terrorists?

We're talking about over one billion people who follow the Islamic faith. It may be hard to accept another's right to express their beliefs or opinion when you don't agree with them, but it gives us no right to take their's away. The French government is known for policies that discriminate against Muslims, not because of anything but discrimination. Allowing this only further causes a rift between two cultures - The West and The Middle East. This law is as extreme as anything propagated by a religious zealot. It is telling another what to do, not to protect the public, but to censor the individual.

[Santa_Claus]

You either stand up for your own culture. or it gets replaced.

at least the French have the sense to understand that the time to tackle Muslims is when they are a minority. Unlike in Britain which has gone past the tipping point in numbers so have to be pandered to. or they blow things up.

In the UK 83% of Immigrants since 1997 have been Muslim. and the rest of them are black.....and will probably convert later. FACT.

[Warren Dew]

Yes, a law that singles out a minority of people, in aregion of the world where there is a good deal of institutionalized anti-islamic sentiment, as there is in the United States and throughout the Western World.

I don't believe the antiislamic sentiment in the U.S. is very institutionalized - and thanks to our better constitutional enforcement, it's not likely to become so.

[Super Aguri]

I'm not a fan of the burka ban, but if it were up to me instead of banning the burka, the problem would be halted at it's roots.

What problem and how would you 'halt it at it's roots'?

Women seem to "choose" to wear the burka because if they don't, they are convinced they will be judged by the God's.

Where did they get this idea? Most likely from indoctrination at the mosque.

I think we should place restrictions of religious organisations just like we place restrictions on pubs and nightclubs. If religious organisations want to continue operations in western countries, we need to set out guidelines for them to follow that include basic human rights. If they can't follow these basic rules, they will be shut down. The same can apply to Islamic schools.

Threatening children with "eternal hellfire" if they don't comply with religious dogma should be classed as child abuse. If we can stop religions brainwashing the next generation of children, we wont be left with situations like this in 50 years time.

In short, banning clothing wont stop the real problem here. Which is brainwashing children and oppressing women.

[Robert_S]

Shit! I clicked on the link and started reading... I'm a Mail Reader

Gee, thanks Lozzer

[Lozzer]

Shit! I clicked on the link and started reading... I'm a Mail Reader

Gee, thanks Lozzer

Made you look!

[HomerJay]

Essentially, then, they are being discriminated against for their choice of clothing as it pertains to their culture.

They are protesting, indeed, against the censorship of a person's freedom of religion and their freedom to express that. If you allow the government to take away from one group - you would be a hypocrite if you were to criticize them for any other attack on individual freedoms. For example, an Atheist's right to wear a shirt that says "Fuck God" or a gay person's right to hang a rainbow pride flag outside their door. This is the first step in abusing any other minority and singling them out.

The stupid here is intense - don't want to get too close to it but...

Why do religions get a special freedom of expression - it sounds like bullshit discrimination.

Lots of religions do dumb as fuck things that we don't allow, FGM and the Witch Children stand out as amongst the worst excesses. Because we don't allow them to beat children to death to drive out demons how the fucking shit does it follow that "This is the first step in abusing any other minority and singling them out.".

[Lozzer]

Essentially, then, they are being discriminated against for their choice of clothing as it pertains to their culture.

They are protesting, indeed, against the censorship of a person's freedom of religion and their freedom to express that. If you allow the government to take away from one group - you would be a hypocrite if you were to criticize them for any other attack on individual freedoms. For example, an Atheist's right to wear a shirt that says "Fuck God" or a gay person's right to hang a rainbow pride flag outside their door. This is the first step in abusing any other minority and singling them out.

The stupid here is intense - don't want to get too close to it but...

Why do religions get a special freedom of expression - it sounds like bullshit discrimination.

Lots of religions do dumb as fuck things that we don't allow, FGM and the Witch Children stand out as amongst the worst excesses. Because we don't allow them to beat children to death to drive out demons how the fucking shit does it follow that "This is the first step in abusing any other minority and singling them out.".

Never forgetting 'You won't allow me to mutilate my child's labia with a sharp stone, omgz discrimination! The consequences ill never be the same!'