Chris_Sleeps Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I should do a little research if I were you. Why's that [...]? Please don't misquote me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 10, 2011 Author Share Posted September 10, 2011 Please don't misquote me.I didn't misquote you. You clearly don't like being made to look silly. Oh well, ya can't tease everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I didn't misquote you. You merely typed new words onto the end of my sentence to make it look like I said something I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 10, 2011 Author Share Posted September 10, 2011 You merely typed new words onto the end of my sentence to make it look like I said something I didn't. arrr, I beg your pardon. I didn't realize I'd done that. Me providing that link was a bit of a stinker though, hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Not the French it isn't. They've passed a law against wearing bhurkhas in public and religious headwear in state schools. They dont worry themselves to death trying to please everybody and getting nowhere. Their attitude and admirably so is that "you have come to France to live. These are the laws of our land. Please respect them. Should you have some issues with this go back home" Muslim countries certainly make sure that their laws are strictly enforced amongst non-muslims. Any female from the west who wants to go out on a hot day in Riyad wearing a halter and top is in for a packet of trouble. As for her applying for a driving license ............. One law for all what a radical idea. What you both appear to be missing is there was no law on the prohibition of face coverings before burka wearers became an issue. There was no law forbidding people wearing motorcycle helmets, or balaclavas or anything else for that matter..this is an erroneous point that people make. Burka wearers were not flouting the laws of the land or seeking special dispensation, they were living within those laws and the overwhelming majority were not in any way linked to criminality or anti French dissidence. So much for the French national motto- Liberty, equality, fraternity. Incidentally it's irrelevant what Muslim countries do or would do, the burka wearers of France are citizens of France and may well live there because of their desire to live in a free, democratic country, that doesn't mean they should be compelled to wear Christian Dior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Cops deal with jobs as they are reported. Yes, but they prioritise. If two "crimes" were reported, a murder and a woman wearing a niqab, which do you think they should prioritise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Well you seem an expert on the EDL have you done a degree on them or just obsessed with them I wonder. Your point being? You haven't made one. Maybe you're in a far-right organisation that doesn't like the criminality of its membership made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Right, so they're a bunch of rampaging idiots who's behavior warrants police intervention. But how does the face coverings they wear pose risks to security? I'm not convinced it does. Obviously so, but none of this makes the Niqab any less of a security risk. I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me this as I'm not a EDL member, nor am I a sympathizer, so I can only assume that you suspect I don't like muslims. Well, if this is the case I can assure that I have no ill intentions towards muslims. I'm not against the niqab because there's a muslim inside it, I'm against it because nobody knows who's inside it, which by anyone's reasoning, must pose risks to security. On your first point, you admit the EDL are rampaging idiots who you think should be allowed to cover their faces. The latter bit would help them to avoid detection. That would be a risk to security if they carried on. The second bit. "Anyone's reasoning"? No, just the reasoning of the far right. You seem to be saying that rampaging EDL idiots are not a security risk despite covering their faces and that Muslim women who aren't rampaging idiots are a security risk because they cover their faces. The thread title is about double standards. I think you've come up with a very good one there. So could you tell us why rampaging Christians are less of a threat than non-rampaging Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 The burka is a vile garment, worn by force or by choice. It represents the worst in humanity. Women who wear it by choice are simply the house slaves. The ones forced to wear it are the field slaves. It is not a religious requirement, it is a sign of submission, proof of ownership and a political statement of hate. This is why it should be banned. I could not be more clear here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I could not be more clear here ..and how does banning it address the issues of domineering husbands, or indeed the ones who choose to wear it 'freely' because they like being 'house slaves'? And of course let's not forget the women who choose to wear it absolutely from free choice for reasons personal and unique to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.