Org Mobile Site
When will this madness stop? Are all Europeans becoming crazy? What about our freedom? Can we no longer wear what we want? A disgrace! These violations of basic human rights have to stop. If we don't act, the whole of the European continent will be ruled by a totalitarian regime!
Link to Article.
Link to Article.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Since the tourists aren't citizens of the country I have no problem with this. You get rights in your own country, anywhere else you are a guest.
Kinda poor taste to wear bath clothing in a restaurant, their country their rules anyhow.
Originally Posted by Andres:
Can we no longer wear what we want?
In public? no you can´t....and it is that way in any civilized society.Can we no longer wear what we want?
so the spanish don´t want to have their lunch sitting next to a disgusting looking moron who insists on walking around bare-chested everywhere....I am shocked....really.
Banning "drinking alcohol on the streets or having sex on the beach" makes sense. But, too be honest you just know this is going to hurt tourism for the town. Many tourists won't know the rules and will be hit with fines. Thus they will get annoyed and have a negative experience. A customer who has a negative experience is 13 times more likely to mention it than those who have a good experience, and they tell 50 people on average of their bad experience. Also, travel agencies are sure to mention this as a sticking point when selling package deals. All this will see a marked decline in tourism. And there will be plenty of other towns who will willingly take the money of those tourists.
All in all a bad move that will hurt the town in the long run. Makes me want to laugh and cry.
Barcalona's move is much better, running a campaign to try and change habits is much less knee-jerk.
All in all a bad move that will hurt the town in the long run. Makes me want to laugh and cry.
Barcalona's move is much better, running a campaign to try and change habits is much less knee-jerk.
Originally Posted by Andres:
If we don't act, the whole of the European continent will be ruled by a totalitarian regime!
i thought we were already headed in that direction...........?If we don't act, the whole of the European continent will be ruled by a totalitarian regime!
Originally Posted by Psychonaut:
Banning "drinking alcohol on the streets or having sex on the beach" makes sense. But, too be honest you just know this is going to hurt tourism for the town. Many tourists won't know the rules and will be hit with fines. Thus they will get annoyed and have a negative experience. A customer who has a negative experience is 13 times more likely to mention it than those who have a good experience, and they tell 50 people on average of their bad experience. Also, travel agencies are sure to mention this as a sticking point when selling package deals. All this will see a marked decline in tourism. And there will be plenty of other towns who will willingly take the money of those tourists.
All in all a bad move that will hurt the town in the long run. Makes me want to laugh and cry.
Barcalona's move is much better, running a campaign to try and change habits is much less knee-jerk.
Follow the money.Banning "drinking alcohol on the streets or having sex on the beach" makes sense. But, too be honest you just know this is going to hurt tourism for the town. Many tourists won't know the rules and will be hit with fines. Thus they will get annoyed and have a negative experience. A customer who has a negative experience is 13 times more likely to mention it than those who have a good experience, and they tell 50 people on average of their bad experience. Also, travel agencies are sure to mention this as a sticking point when selling package deals. All this will see a marked decline in tourism. And there will be plenty of other towns who will willingly take the money of those tourists.
All in all a bad move that will hurt the town in the long run. Makes me want to laugh and cry.
Barcalona's move is much better, running a campaign to try and change habits is much less knee-jerk.
USA resort towns that crack down on the party/Spring break type of client do so to INCREASE the appeal of the resort to family tourism -- who are usually better spenders and pump more in the local economy.
I suspect that something along this line is what's happening.
Sorry but I too agree with this.
"Thin end of the wedge" arguments end up with it not being fair that couples aren't allowed to undertake consensual bondage / orgies in public as to ban it would be infringing their right to public indecency...
Their country, their rules. I just wish it was our country, our rules.
"Thin end of the wedge" arguments end up with it not being fair that couples aren't allowed to undertake consensual bondage / orgies in public as to ban it would be infringing their right to public indecency...
Their country, their rules. I just wish it was our country, our rules.
Originally Posted by Psychonaut:
Banning "drinking alcohol on the streets or having sex on the beach" makes sense. But, too be honest you just know this is going to hurt tourism for the town.
Guess you never been there, the behaviour of some tourists, Dutch and English I am talking to you, is simply disgusting. You are visiting the place, is it so much to ask to have some manners.Banning "drinking alcohol on the streets or having sex on the beach" makes sense. But, too be honest you just know this is going to hurt tourism for the town.
Originally Posted by :
Their country, their rules
Exactly. Andres as a visitor to a country you have to respect the population's wishes, but if you want to grant Muslims Belgian nationality they are part of the population, and you have to respect their wishes.Their country, their rules
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Exactly. Andres as a visitor to a country you have to respect the population's wishes, but if you want to grant Muslims Belgian nationality they are part of the population, and you have to respect their wishes.
Where does the article say it is limited to foreign tourists? Do you think that a Spanish lady wearing a bikini in a Salou restaurant will not get a fine because she is of Spanish nationality while a Dutch lady will get fined because she is not Spanish? And if it would indeed be that way, you're perfectly fine with it?Exactly. Andres as a visitor to a country you have to respect the population's wishes, but if you want to grant Muslims Belgian nationality they are part of the population, and you have to respect their wishes.
Why do you think only visitors need to respect the populations' wishes, but the inhabitants themselves don't?
Are you the same person as the one who was outraged because the burqa got banned?
For the record: I agree with the bikini ban in Salou; I opened this thread as a parody on the burqua threads and also because I was curious about the reactions of those who oppose a burqua ban. Surprisingly, they are ok with banning a bikini, even if the only reason to ban it, is because some people deem it undecent when you wear it on the market. I wonder why banning a bikini is ok, but banning a burqua is not.
Originally Posted by :
Are you the same person as the one who was outraged because the burqa got banned?
Yes I am. Well, perhaps not outraged, but definitely disappointed Are you the same person as the one who was outraged because the burqa got banned?
. I am under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the population in this case is fed up with foreigners behaving in a loutish way. Though I find banning clothing a rather silly way to deal with anti-social behaviour, if the Spanish population don't want to wear bikinis in the streets, then so be it. Equally, if in Saudia Arabia I am not allowed to hold hands with a woman, then so be it, it is thanks to their generosity that I am allowed in the country at all.The fundamental difference with the burqa ban in Belgium is that it is not aimed at restricting visitors, it is aimed at restricting a subsection of the population. Visitors are there on the tolerance of the population only. Belgian Muslims (should) have equal rights and respect under Belgian law as any other Belgian citizen.
EDIT: just for the sake of being provocative: tourists are not citizens at all, and so their opinion does not directly count for anything in the law making process. You could of course consider Belgian Muslims to be second class citizens, who's opinions and culture do not figure in the law making process because they are not proper Belgians. (I know that isn't your point of view, from the previous thread, you consider yourself to be acting on behalf of Muslim women by banning the Burqa, that's a separate issue to the one you're raising here, i.e. whether it is justifiable in general to ban clothing)
Also, for the record, I would be very disappointed if they banned bikinis in the UK, (and not because it would make my summer walks in the park less entertaining). I would consider it a ridiculous and unnecessary restriction on the wishes of a significant part of the British population.
Well to play the devil's advocate (heh), burqa wearing Belgians are neighbours of Belgians who may find the burqa a reprehensible rag that goes against their societal norms -- essentially both bans amount to a sort of dress code in public places based on the associations these items of clothing (or un-clothing) provoke.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Well to play the devil's advocate (heh), burqa wearing Belgians are neighbours of Belgians who may find the burqa a reprehensible rag that goes against their societal norms -- essentially both bans amount to a sort of dress code in public places based on the associations these items of clothing (or un-clothing) provoke.
Exactly.Well to play the devil's advocate (heh), burqa wearing Belgians are neighbours of Belgians who may find the burqa a reprehensible rag that goes against their societal norms -- essentially both bans amount to a sort of dress code in public places based on the associations these items of clothing (or un-clothing) provoke.
Except one is a dress code enforced by a unanimous population on unwilling visitors, the other is a dress code enforced by a majority of citizens on a minority of citizens.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Yes I am. Well, perhaps not outraged, but definitely disappointed. I am under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the population in this case is fed up with foreigners behaving in a loutish way.
They can have it for all I care as long as they accept the consequences, burqa is a security risk, but the niqaab is acceptable for me. But I won't aid them in any way, works both ways.Yes I am. Well, perhaps not outraged, but definitely disappointed
. I am under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the population in this case is fed up with foreigners behaving in a loutish way.Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
The fundamental difference with the burqa ban in Belgium is that it is not aimed at restricting visitors, it is aimed at restricting a subsection of the population. Visitors are there on the tolerance of the population only. Belgian Muslims (should) have equal rights and respect under Belgian law as any other Belgian citizen.
But they have equal rights! And they have equal duties! I, a non Muslim Belgian citizen, am not allowed to wear a burqua either!The fundamental difference with the burqa ban in Belgium is that it is not aimed at restricting visitors, it is aimed at restricting a subsection of the population. Visitors are there on the tolerance of the population only. Belgian Muslims (should) have equal rights and respect under Belgian law as any other Belgian citizen.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
EDIT: just for the sake of being provocative: tourists are not citizens at all, and so their opinion does not directly count for anything in the law making process. You could of course consider Belgian Muslims to be second class citizens, who's opinions and culture do not figure in the law making process because they are not proper Belgians. (I know that isn't your point of view, from the previous thread, you consider yourself to be acting on behalf of Muslim women by banning the Burqa, that's a separate issue to the one you're raising here, i.e. whether it is justifiable in general to ban clothing)
EDIT: just for the sake of being provocative: tourists are not citizens at all, and so their opinion does not directly count for anything in the law making process. You could of course consider Belgian Muslims to be second class citizens, who's opinions and culture do not figure in the law making process because they are not proper Belgians. (I know that isn't your point of view, from the previous thread, you consider yourself to be acting on behalf of Muslim women by banning the Burqa, that's a separate issue to the one you're raising here, i.e. whether it is justifiable in general to ban clothing)
So, you think it is possible for a country to impose all kinds of ridiculous bans on people, as long as the people they are being imposed on are not citizens of that country?
You didn't respond to my question about the Spanish tourist. Following your logic, if she would wear a bikini in a restaurant, she can't be fined because she is Spanish, but the Dutch lady wearing the exact same bikini in that very same restaurant, can be fined?
I'm confused.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Except one is a dress code enforced by a unanimous population on unwilling visitors, the other is a dress code enforced by a majority of citizens on a minority of citizens.
So, we can forbid tourists to wear a burqua, but we can't forbid citizens to wear a burqua?Except one is a dress code enforced by a unanimous population on unwilling visitors, the other is a dress code enforced by a majority of citizens on a minority of citizens.
That's ridiculous.
Originally Posted by :
burqa is a security risk
I thought we had been over this already? A rucksack is much more of a security risk than a Burqa, yet I don't hear calls to ban the rucksack. All the London bombers used rucksacks, none of them used burqas. The security argument weak beyond belief.burqa is a security risk
Originally Posted by :
So, we can forbid tourists to wear a burqua, but we can't forbid citizens to wear a burqua?
Who is we Andres? The white population of Belgium? The Belgian people can do anything they please, but banning the burqa may not please a significant part of the Belgian people (quite the opposite). The people of Spain can also do as they please, and if they unanimously don't want bikinis on their streets, so be it.So, we can forbid tourists to wear a burqua, but we can't forbid citizens to wear a burqua?
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Who is we Andres? The white population of Belgium?
No. The Belgian people and their representatives in the legislative body.Who is we Andres? The white population of Belgium?
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
The Belgian people can do anything they please, but banning the burqa may not please a significant part of the Belgian people (quite the opposite). The people of Spain can also do as they please, and if they unanimously don't want bikinis on their streets, so be it.
Unanimous? Do you think the owners of the local discotecas are in favour of this? Or the sellers of liquor? Or organisers of beach parties? A signifcant part of the Salou populations won't be happy with this decision (quite the opposite). Or are they second class citizens because they make money?The Belgian people can do anything they please, but banning the burqa may not please a significant part of the Belgian people (quite the opposite). The people of Spain can also do as they please, and if they unanimously don't want bikinis on their streets, so be it.
Decisions like these are never taken unanimously and there will always people be opposed to it. Why the outrage when it's group A who doesn't like decision A, but no outrage when group B doesn't like similar decision A' ?
Nobody is banning discos, nobody is banning liquor. That would be comparable to banning the burqa.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
I thought we had been over this already? A rucksack is much more of a security risk than a Burqa, yet I don't hear calls to ban the rucksack. All the London bombers used rucksacks, none of them used burqas. The security argument weak beyond belief.
No it really isn't, if you allow that you are allowing absolute invisibility. Sparse as they may be terrorist attacks are a real threat. They could assemble a nuke right under our eyes because of such political corectness.I thought we had been over this already? A rucksack is much more of a security risk than a Burqa, yet I don't hear calls to ban the rucksack. All the London bombers used rucksacks, none of them used burqas. The security argument weak beyond belief.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Nobody is banning discos, nobody is banning liquor. That would be comparable to banning the burqa.
No, but the ban is aimed at the audience of such places.Nobody is banning discos, nobody is banning liquor. That would be comparable to banning the burqa.
Besides, I can play the ball back: when banning a burqua, nobody is banning Islam
Some Muslims feel that the two are inseparable. I don't think even the most greedy lecherous liquore salesman could say the same of bikinis. If they could, they would have a point! Does their opinion not matter?
Originally Posted by :
No it really isn't, if you allow that you are allowing absolute invisibility. Sparse as they may be terrorist attacks are a real threat. They could assemble a nuke right under our eyes because of such political corectness.
Assemble a nuke under the cover of a Burqa? What nonsense! People's houses allow absolute invisiblity. They could assemble a nuke right in their basement because the political correct brigade refuses to allow full CCTV coverage of all private property. People coming in and out of the country have to identify themselves. It's not like Osama Bin Laden could stroll in with a nuclear bomb under his Burqa! Once you're in the country, anything you can do in a Burqa you can do in a car, or in a rucksack for that matter. Please, let's not pretend that Burqas are walking bombs any more than a rucksack or a van, it's ridiculous.No it really isn't, if you allow that you are allowing absolute invisibility. Sparse as they may be terrorist attacks are a real threat. They could assemble a nuke right under our eyes because of such political corectness.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Some Muslims feel that the two are inseparable. I don't think even the most greedy lecherous liquore salesman could say the same of bikinis. If they could, they would have a point! Does their opinion not matter?
Why should there be more understanding for the guy who worships Allah than for the guy who worships the god of money aka his source of income?Some Muslims feel that the two are inseparable. I don't think even the most greedy lecherous liquore salesman could say the same of bikinis. If they could, they would have a point! Does their opinion not matter?
Nobody will go bankrupt because she can no longer wear a burqua. The owner of a discoteca might go bankrupt if his audience doesn't come over any more because of some clothing ban. Why do you feel that the burqua woman can complain, but the discoteca owner who will probably be ruined and will see his source of income and everything he worked for disappear, can't?
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
Assemble a nuke under the cover of a Burqa? What nonsense! People's houses allow absolute invisiblity. They could assemble a nuke right in their basement because the political correct brigade refuses to allow full CCTV coverage of all private property. People coming in and out of the country have to identify themselves. It's not like Osama Bin Laden could stroll in with a nuclear bomb under his Burqa! Once you're in the country, anything you can do in a Burqa you can do in a car, or in a rucksack for that matter. Please, let's not pretend that Burqas are walking bombs any more than a rucksack or a van, it's ridiculous.
They would have to get out and get parts. Like it or not but islamic terrorism is real. If you were an evil genius, how would you do it. Must be good to have your evil henchmen have absolute freedom of movement. So we can't allow it. If you think the burqua isn't a security risk I don't think you are thinking like they do.Assemble a nuke under the cover of a Burqa? What nonsense! People's houses allow absolute invisiblity. They could assemble a nuke right in their basement because the political correct brigade refuses to allow full CCTV coverage of all private property. People coming in and out of the country have to identify themselves. It's not like Osama Bin Laden could stroll in with a nuclear bomb under his Burqa! Once you're in the country, anything you can do in a Burqa you can do in a car, or in a rucksack for that matter. Please, let's not pretend that Burqas are walking bombs any more than a rucksack or a van, it's ridiculous.
Burquas and beards are not required to be a Muslim... And to be honest, so what if they were? If Druids want to commence the historic practice of ritual human sacrifice is this suddenly OK?
I assure you, if I thought discos were going to have to be closed because of the ban, I would be suitably outraged, but really? Is that even realistic enough to be mildly comparable?
If bikinis were banned in the UK, I would be the first to sign up for the protest march on Westminster. To be honest I find the Spanish ban stupid anyway, since it is the anti-social behaviour which is the problem, not the clothing (which seems to cause nobody any problems when it's on the beach). If there are any Spanish citizens who feel their livelihood has been damaged by this ban, then I support them entirely (but I doubt it is the case).
Bikinis in restaurants is another matter of course, any private business can have a dress code.
EDIT:
If bikinis were banned in the UK, I would be the first to sign up for the protest march on Westminster. To be honest I find the Spanish ban stupid anyway, since it is the anti-social behaviour which is the problem, not the clothing (which seems to cause nobody any problems when it's on the beach). If there are any Spanish citizens who feel their livelihood has been damaged by this ban, then I support them entirely (but I doubt it is the case).
Bikinis in restaurants is another matter of course, any private business can have a dress code.
EDIT:
Originally Posted by :
If Druids want to commence the historic practice of ritual human sacrifice is this suddenly OK?
The rights of one end where the rights of another begin. How does other people wearing certain types of clothes, or having beards and worshipping the god of weed, infringe on the rights of others? It's not a good comparison since murdering people definitely infringes on their rights.If Druids want to commence the historic practice of ritual human sacrifice is this suddenly OK?
It's normal in any beach town for people to walk around in swimmers. Cracking down on drunken rowdy behaviour is fair enough, but banning swim wear away from the beach is silly.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO