I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Printable View
I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You can't deny the second half of my post though.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That's right, they had corsets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This topic reminds me of
http://www.thelocal.se/20250/20090624/
Quote:
Women in Malmö have been given the right to bathe topless in the swimming pools of Sweden's third largest city.
[...]
The Bara Bröst network swept to prominence in late 2007 after two bare-breasted young women were called ashore by a lifeguard at a swimming pool in Uppsala. When they refused to cover up, they were asked to leave the premises.
Speaking to The Local at the time, Ragnhild Karlsson, 22, explained the womens' motives for swimming without bikini tops.
"It's a question of equality. I think it's a problem that women are sexualized in this way. If women are forced to wear a top, shouldn't men also have to?"
Outraged by what they regarded as discrimination, a group of women in southern Sweden made a show of solidarity by establishing the network, whose name translates as both "bare breasts" and "just breasts".
This should be followed up by a ban, since bikinis reduces women's natural potential to be distinct individuals. :smash:
In many cultures that have never heard about feminism, women walking topless is considered the norm.
-
I think some of the fashion Louis linked to really is as manly as fashion theoretically can get; it's only banned because we live in misandric societies. :beam:
What the :daisy:, I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe. Or if we don't want to go down that line, maybe I can ban Catholics from following their traditions, it's not in the Bible after all, Sola Scriptura everybody. And that's not just me trolling the RCC, this is more or less what we are doing to Sunni Muslims here.
As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.
And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?
Removing the burkhas was often one of the things I wasn't allowed to do. And justifying today by drawing comparison with what we now consider unjustifiable hardly adds weight to your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
They want to live here. I think that that it is fair to expect assimilation. If not, move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.
~:smoking:
No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"Hey, lady. Don't wear that."
"Why?"
"Because no man should be able to tell you what to do."
"What?"
"Yes, that's a good girl. Now wear this skimpy bikini to make you look pretty."
So....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?
Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....
*facepalm*Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Terrorist steryotypes? Are you serious?
That's because Swedes are Stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
:laugh4:
I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
"Than you for coming in to see me Ms Fatwa"
"No problem headteacher"
"There have been some concerns regarding your teaching of the class"
"Yes?"
"It's concerning the garment that you are wearing that is removing all facial features..."
"I hope you're not telling me what to wear? How DARE you be so intolerant! People from my country can get imprisoned or stoned for criticising the dress!!!"
"Oh, I'm very sorry, but the thing is the children are deaf, and find it hard to bond with a tower of black cloth..."
~:smoking:
They can improve their situation by not covering theirselves all up, do we have any obligations to not let them screw up? No cookies for the unwilling. I don't want to ban these clothes, except the burkha, but no wealthfare when you dress up like a pinguin because you have chosen to not to be of any use to us, sort it out yourselve then, just because you were born doesn't mean you deserve to have a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.
In a burkha he can attract zero attention much much easier, if something is going on, good luck finding out who is who where and when.
Intermission
It would be great if this thread could continue without making personal attacks, making wild assumptions about the views of your "opponent" and resorting to stereoptypes.
I am currently quite tempted to close this one, but I have not completely given up the hope that this could continue as a meaningful (and civilised) discussion.
Thanks
End of intermission
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
GOLDEN!!
Yes, zero attention. In Afghanistan. Elsewhere, he/she will stick out like a sore thumb. The 9/11 attackers, the London bombers were all dressed in western clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes, but that is because they had to infiltrate into a certain society, but a society isn't that hard to infiltrate if people are allowed to cover up their faces and all look exactly the same. If I would have any bad intentions I would welcome it like the second comming of the lack of christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This should help http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4032
Great idea. Really.
It's the end of civilisation as we know it. Over to the Octo-squids. :sweatdrop:Quote:
The influence of new cultures has managed to destroy a cherished French tradition too: women no longer bathe topless. They don't feel comfortable anymore. I can not begin to describe my grief over this.
You do realize that in America you are allowed to wear burqas, so your argument is not valid. Terrorists might be fanatics, but they are not idiots. Burqa might conceal your face, but the outfit itself is so controversial that every cop is guaranteed to watch you like a hawk. In fact, if *I* were a terrorist, I'd hire a couple of hookers to put on burqas and walk around as a distraction for cops, while I would meld with the crowd and do whatever it was that I planned on doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So when you put yourself in their mind you have already found a use for them, and yet my argument isn't valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it isn't valid. You were putting terrorists behind those burqas. I was putting hookers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So, why did this discussion turn away from advocating that women remove their clothes before getting wet?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And someone could be putting terminators under it. If I would be running a criminal/terrorist organisation, well, well that's just me how would you do it. To have your guys running the streets with absolute freedom of movement because of absolute concealment of my organisation, pure bliss. And you allow that all because you don't want to insult people who build their houses from mud and camelshit had they not lived in a civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
How often do you see people wearing burqas? In order for a burqa to be a viable tool of concealment, it has to be common. So, what's the share of burqa enthusiasts in Dutch society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I have never seen one in my life, but is that the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Has burqa been illegal all these years? If not, then what's the purpose of banning something that isn't a problem anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't know how big the problem is in France, but in Belgium it isn't that uncommon that criminals wear them. The burkha just isn't here thankfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Still, the question stands: why ban burqas in the Netherlands if they aren't a problem there? I mean, when you pass a law, you expect it to accomplish something. What exactly would this kind of law accomplish if it were passed?
Indeed. And I do not believe these women wearing burqas are free to do any of that. They are pressured into doing so by their relatives and their imported culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
THAT is the point - that these women are not making a completely free decision to wear a burqas. It is a symbol of the repression of women.
Banning the burqa is therefore is therefore an attempt to fight this repression of women and introduce more western values - ie. of equality.
CR
No need to ban them in the Netherlands all the considerations I have made are already covered by Dutch law. I am making a case for why they shouldn't be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Are burqas allowed in the Netherlands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not sure. By law certainly not because someone is concealed. As far as I know we don't have them here.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Wait a minute, are you telling me that in The Netherlands you are required by law to have your face visible at all times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
On the streets yes. I think you can pull of wearing a jason mask on the streets for forever, but it's in essence illegal. There is a huge difference between theory and practise here, just about everything is illegal but it's allowed nevertheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
§ 14‑12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
§ 14‑12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article.
I credit The Klan for that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
We don't have those either. It's just common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
France has this law, every western country does as far as I know, so they can skip the whole religion part and just ban the burkha because we can simply do it. If we don't, maybe I should start wearing a jason mask go to the bank and demand equal treatment just for fun? The bhurka can be banned just because of the principle of equal treatment.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
According to the women that wear them, they're making a statement on the superiority of the Islamic culture, and hoping to promote a migration towards it in their new Western home
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Foreign people look and act different and native people don't like it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
People should come to the country to meld with the society, not do what they or their ancestors did in their own.
If they don't like it - leave.
What a load of bollox.
Did none of you notice that Carole is a French citizen of French ancestry.:oops:
Actually since two of you are British is it a good time to mention that this week in the name of decency a rather large British business has banned people from wearing swimming trunks in its swimming pools .
I wonder if they are going to reintroduce the tradtional Victorian bathing costumes and bring back strict sex segregation for swimming amenities in the name of culture
*shrug* what is forbidden in North Carolina is not forbidden in New York or Michigan. Anyway, why I suppose that banning burqas under the mask provision might not violate the letter of the law it would most certainly violate the spirit of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Hmmmmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
South Carolina is quite warm, right? Something tells me you won't see that law in Alaska, for example...
Typical "Laws Gone Wild" situation. Was originally put in to prevent Klansmen from rallying, now you can't wear a respirator without getting a citation.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Religious converts are often worse than those born into the religion. They are so desperate to prove themselves.
Well not using every means at your disposal to end crap like this wouldn't be in the spirit of humanity. Personally I would rather shoot them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Foreal? That's harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ah desperate measures needed for the preservation of decent humanity .Quote:
Well not using every means at your disposal to end crap like this wouldn't be in the spirit of humanity
That kinda sounds familiar.
Initially that was the thought of those who last spun that line of yours on the continent , in the end they worked out that gas was much better.Quote:
Personally I would rather shoot them.
Person's choice. The person should have the choice not to wear them, not necessarily be "banned". However, it should fit in with clothing standards, such as health or safety regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
On the other hand, there are certain biniki's being banned because it is clothing designed to make women sexual objects and mark them as inferior beings for a man's pleasure. Away with the bikini, it's a disgrace.
No of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Clothing? That's a secondary issue when it comes to womens rights. The primary issue is economic independence. Without that, none of the other stuff is possible, nor is it even relevant. Without economic independence, the woman remains a slave. You can make her well trained and well dressed, but she will still be a slave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
First get her an income. Then you can worry about all the other stuff.
Yep. Equal opportunity and equal pay. The rest will follow on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well that isn't a very realistic course of events now is it, why would one hire a blue sack without eyes when one can hire something that resembles a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, an example would be to service other blue sacks in a blue sack neighborhood. In that case it would totally make sense to hire a blue sack for the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
This is starting to sound kinky.
I would like to think that qualifications and personal qualities would overcome something as petty as a persons appearance.
... :laugh4:
What a silly thread.
Doing what. Put it at the garbage with the rest of the trash who can see the difference anyway, it's blue, no eyes, a sack, swoosh bye. I can't believe how you guys are trying to wrap a civilized society around this just to make extreme backwardness more pleasing to the eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well, allthough he worded it "Fragonesque", I kinda agree with Fragony.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
An employer won't hire you if you constantly want to wear a burqua.
For some jobs, it's probably just not safe, and in other jobs you have dresscodes (banks, law firms, stores, ...).
So, by insisting to constantly be allowed to wear the burqua, you exclude yourself from many job opportunities. Which also addresses HoreTore's point about being able to get an income.
Welcome in the real world :shrug:
Of course there are jobs where all that loose clothing would make you unemployable if you insisted on wearing it, and I accept that some companies have dress codes, in much the same way that someone with excessive tats or peircings would stop them getting the said job, but it was their choice, and they didn't get the job :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Oh, I'm not making any excuses for wearing a blue sack. From the purely business perspective though, the blue sacks' cash is the same color as yours. Thus, if buying stuff from a store staffed with their fellow blue sacks will cause them to spend more, it only makes sense to staff the store accordingly. *shrug* business is color blind and deity-neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well, probably going a bit off topic here, but if your choice makes it practically impossible to get a job, should you be allowed to get unemployment benefits?Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
We don't feel pity with the lazy guy who doesn't leave his bed to go looking for a job. How about the religious woman who dresses herself as such that it's impossible for her to get a job. Should she get unemployment benefits?
Ah the real world .Quote:
Welcome in the real world
So say France where this story is from, it has the staggering amount of about 300 people who wear Burquas, which is a hell of a lot from a population of a paltry 65 million .
If I recall correctly from one of the many Netherlandistan topics about the new Fundamentalist Islamist State of Holland they have about 50 people who wear them.
It really is a big issue isn't it:dizzy2:
When you look at it that way: no, it's a non-issue, like most symbolic issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The importance lies in the symbolic value :shrug:
Is there any other way of looking at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Yeah sure how much use do you have for this,Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...m44-207254.jpg
No place for her chez Fragony's, I don't want a pityfull creature like that around me they aren't human to me. They have done a great job I have zero pity zero compassion for her dead or alive I don't care because it was never alive anyway. But then again could have been Nada, if she is no thanks to you.
Look, nobody is obligating you to hire her. That doesn't mean however that there are no job opportunities for people like her. If some gothapotamus with a bunch of nose rings and tattooed from head to toe can find some sort of employment, then the blue sack is not worse off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't see a ringlord being dragged into a machine because he has long sleeves. And I can see neither having a job where they have to deal with people.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Call center is a perfect example of a blue sack-friendly employment. Or network administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Actually, rings are terribly dangerous around heavy machinery. My uncle lost the end of his finger becuase he forgot to take off his wedding ring, he's lucky that's all he lost.
Wouldn't it be funny if that French woman in the article sent a job application to Frag, she would obviously make it past the first hurdle as he only throws job applications straight in the bin if he thinks the name sounds arab .Quote:
Look, nobody is obligating you to hire her.
Poor old Frag might get his legal comeuppance when he actually met her and coundn't keep his bigotry under control.
If you feel the burka or praying 5 times a day gets in the way of them doing a job properly, then of course I don't reckon the government ought to be making you ignore that when it comes to hiring them.
But we are talking about banning any use of a form of dress here, this isn't about their ability to integrate with others this is a private matter. So what if it stops them getting a job, who's going to tell us what's respectable? Tracksuits don't look great at job interviews, maybe all those people on benefits should be banned from wearing them. And those hippies with their long hair, the ought to be made to cut it nice and respectable if they want food coming in. And people shouldn't allowed to be fat, that could be a disadvantage when seeking work. In fact why don't we just have a government approved dress code that will mean nobody has an excuse for not trying to get a job...
You are, at no point the Kuran specifically states that women should cover their face. It only became an issue with the emergence of islam as a way to create an identity (ie. early 20th).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
In any case, you can ask whatever you want to 'muslims', I doubt you'll get any correct answer since every imam has his own ideas about what's correct and what's not, about what's orthodoxy and what's not. You have numerous muslim people claiming that at no point the Prophet asked women to wear veil or anything else, while you have other guys claiming that women shouldn't show any part of their body.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the secular authority have all rights to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear. They can believe in any kind of fairy tale crap they want, as long as it stays within the private sphere. The swimming pool is obviously not a private sphere. So goodbye burkas.
It is not, I repeat, it is not a private matter. It is a societal matter. Just like anything that bears some cultural value is not a private matter when you expose it on the public scene. Wearing religious symbols in public has been widely disregarded/prohibited for almost a century in France. Once again, it wasn't only done to discriminate catholics, but also to allow protestant, jews and eastern christians (mostly armenians) to live their religion freely. Said protestants, jews and other religious minorities mostly accepted the new rules with their pro's and con's. Muslims have to realize that, if they want their religion to be protected according to our laws, they have to abid to said laws, even when they don't like it.
Seeing a women wearing a burka terrify me, and I'm dead serious. Does that make it a good reason to ban them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Mummy state doesn't know what's best for them, but it knows what's best for society. Allowing this kind of thing to happen is obviously not good for society, and more widely, for women. Once again, I suggest you do some readings on the french concept of laïcité, 1905, and things like that. If you don't like it, fine, nobody asked you to live in France. If they don't like it, they can move to England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
@Fragony. I unfortunately have never heard of a kid wearing a cross at school getting kicked out. You can either blame it on some ethnocentered/racist view (as in, catholics can wear their religious symbols, muslims cannot), or the fact that nobody cares about wearing a cross at school (deeply catholic people go to catholic private schools usually). I've never ever seen anyone wearing a cross, from elementary school to university.
The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Surprise, surprise:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
A lot of employers will hire you, burka or not.
Yeah I guess it possible, face for the radio type of thing, but why would I take one of these shambling sleepingbags over someone who isn't such a miserable excuse for a human being. Ah society, If you can't leave the desert behind you should be herding your goats and loving your wives, or the other way around, or both, even at the same time, but not here but in the desert where you come from. There is no place in this society for these peasants as long as they insist to be the useless parasites they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
A lot of people find that racist bigots are miserable excuses for human beings.Quote:
someone who isn't such a miserable excuse for a human being.
How do you know it's racist, did you pull of that blue rag and saw what's beneath? What color of the rainbow are they hiding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well now that I've finally clued into what's going on I feel rather stupid. Fragony is obviously sitting there having a good laugh at all of us who thought he was being serious :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT
Seriously though, bad form for dragging the joke on so long when we all thought you were serious :thumbsdown:
Perhaps you should have become more familiar with Frags views on muslims arabs and immigrants before you wrote that.Quote:
Fragony is obviously sitting there having a good laugh at all of us who thought he was being serious
i agree, but i don't want any legislation banning acts on discrimination* on the grounds of inability to trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
* using the dictionary definition of the word.
rubbish, business is whoring yourself out in the most attractive way possible, turning up to a sales meeting looking like an outcast from scooby-doo will win you no orders unless you have something pretty damned special.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
hard to build a personal relationship from behind a barrier.
agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg