French approve ban on burqas...

Chris S wrote: Sorry but Burqas need to be banned, hopefully other nations will follow suit. Looking at Dubai and commercialism hitting the muslim areas be it westernized or M.East areas, it is time to get WISE for that religion and move with the times. If one suicide bomber is disguised then the method needs to be removed. Wear the burqa as much as they want at their home or in their place of worship. Good one France

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Chris S wrote: Sorry but Burqas need to be banned, hopefully other nations will follow suit. Looking at Dubai and commercialism hitting the muslim areas be it westernized or M.East areas, it is time to get WISE for that religion and move with the times. If one suicide bomber is disguised then the method needs to be removed. Wear the burqa as much as they want at their home or in their place of worship. Good one France   As a lawyer I have to disagree with the ban it's anti Constitutuional a woman can wear what she wants:   PREAMBLE The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004. DECLARATION OF 1789   4.  Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.       The use of a Burqa, even when western societies don't use them don't harm anybody, as a fact it's the right of a woman to dress how she wants being harmless for anybody else and the enjoyment of anybody's rights..   And the disguise of a bomber is just a foolish excuse, wigs, beards, mustaches, etc can be used to disguise, lets band them also in that case.   A mustache or a beard can be used also to disguise a person...lets ban them...Hey wigs also, lets send people who use them to prison.   Lets prohibit people to change the color of their hair and use cosmetic contact lens.   The limit of a liberty is the decline of society.   Iván

I don't think you'll find many suicide bombers blowing up mosques and their own families. Wear it at home and get off on it.

Epignosis wrote: Chris S wrote: I don't think you'll find many suicide bombers blowing up mosques and their own families. Wear it at home and get off on it.   And the first Nun to blow up 20 innocent muslims, europeans, africans, earthlings, then damn well ban that friggin habit too or..   we can all get warm and fuzzy the next time suicide bombers attack and we all say " Shame what about the majorities loss of human rights and loss of liberty" we should really allow more nuns habits and burqas.   Until you know of someone who was lost or blown to smithereens, rant away about loss of "so called" priveliges.   Time for the Just For Fun section i think...   The tree analogy was rediculous. By your foolishness, we should ban automobiles too.  "They" kill more people than terrorists.

And stairs! Let's ban stairs. They kill an astronomical number of people every year.

According to this site 1307 Americans died from falling down the stairs in 2000.


Edited by thellama73 - July 16 2010 at 00:05

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Chris S wrote: I don't think you'll find many suicide bombers blowing up mosques and their own families. Wear it at home and get off on it.   And the first Nun to blow up 20 innocent muslims, europeans, africans, earthlings, then damn well ban that friggin habit too or..   we can all get warm and fuzzy the next time suicide bombers attack and we all say " Shame what about the majorities loss of human rights and loss of liberty" we should really allow more nuns habits and burqas.   Until you know of someone who was lost or blown to smithereens, rant away about loss of "so called" priveliges.   Time for the Just For Fun section i think...   The tree analogy was rediculous. By your foolishness, we should ban automobiles too.  "They" kill more people than terrorists. that analogy is getting old Robert. Time to think of a new one.

I thought of a new one.












(stairs!)

Analogies have no place here anyway. Ask Ivan about that; he is a lawyer. Analogies have no place whatever in law.

The T wrote: Padraic wrote: I think this is a terrible decision for many reasons. (Teo) What is your view? I'd be interested in hearing the reasons too. I'm kind of torn on this though I tend to agree with the ban. It is slightly negative for religious freedom but I can't accept religious ideas that make one half of the population into second-class persons, and that forces them to hide behind a curtain. Maybe they feel freer inside the veil? Maybe. But themandate to wear it is a man-made (male-made should I say) decision, imposition on all muslim woman who wouldn't have a choice not to wear the thing (at least those in the radical exextremes of the religion) so I think this decision is healthy and a steo towards less discrimination.

On the contrary, it is a step towards discrimination. You take it for granted that the "poor Islamic women" would ratheer wear something else. While there certainly are such women there are some who willingly wear the burka: I personally know a few, and they definitely don#t wear them because their husbands or families suppressed them; no, it was their own free decision. One of them even said it liberates her to wear one! The reason she gave was that it freed her from being a sex object and only her human values, her personality counts that way, Being a woman myself I certainly see her point there. Is it not suppressing women to have them wear sexy clothes so that men can glare at them? This is exactly what is being done in the Western world. Think about it twice and try to assume a female position to answer this.

Chris S wrote: BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: Padraic wrote: I think this is a terrible decision for many reasons. (Teo) What is your view? I'd be interested in hearing the reasons too. I'm kind of torn on this though I tend to agree with the ban. It is slightly negative for religious freedom but I can't accept religious ideas that make one half of the population into second-class persons, and that forces them to hide behind a curtain. Maybe they feel freer inside the veil? Maybe. But themandate to wear it is a man-made (male-made should I say) decision, imposition on all muslim woman who wouldn't have a choice not to wear the thing (at least those in the radical exextremes of the religion) so I think this decision is healthy and a steo towards less discrimination. On the contrary, it is a step towards discrimination. You take it for granted that the "poor Islamic women" would ratheer wear something else. While there certainly are such women there are some who willingly wear the burka: I personally know a few, and they definitely don#t wear them because their husbands or families suppressed them; no, it was their own free decision. One of them even said it liberates her to wear one! The reason she gave was that it freed her from being a sex object and only her human values, her personality counts that way, Being a woman myself I certainly see her point there. Is it not suppressing women to have them wear sexy clothes so that men can glare at them? This is exactly what is being done in the Western world. Think about it twice and try to assume a female position to answer this. Well we are in a modern world and as far as women wearing sexy clothes, I am sure women glare at them too, good on em'

Oh, so you are sure, eh? Ask a woman what happens if she does not play along, how many men will ask her out. Try to be decent in your clothing, and you are being ignored by men. That's how it is and no other way. No, women wearing sexy clothes is just another suppression by the male world for us women.
I am lesbian, so I don't give a damn about that. I wear what I want.

Chris S wrote: I know your persuasion and totally respect it and also I beleive this conversation is going nowhere-now here.

Because you won't accept that men still keep oppressing women. Have you ever seen a man dressed in sexy clothes comparable to what women wear? If he does he is being considered to be gay. Is that not so?


Edited by BaldFriede - July 16 2010 at 01:18

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ He could be metrosexual.

But would that be your first assumption? I doubt it.
Anyway, I am just demonstrating how much women are still being oppressed by men. As already said, one of the women wearing a burka including facial veil and gloves told me that wearing one liberated her from being a sex object. She chose to wear the burka of her own free will; no-one had asked her to. But no, that can't be allowed, of course.
It is quite ironic that, of all people, none other than Sarkozy is being seen as the liberator of women, when elsewhere he has proven to be anything but a liberator but just the opposite. That alone should give us pause to think about the real meaning of the burka ban in France.