Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I guess if I carried a knife, covered my face, bled an animal to death for food, while riding a moped with nothing but a turban on, saying I've really embraced multiculturalism would be no defence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Having been kindly requested to conclude an 'off-topic' debate on another thread, I'm opening this one to debate it further. On the aforementioned thread, a side debate ensued over, what I claim to be, "the double standard" that I believe exists within our legislative polices, lawful acts, policing procedures, and the attitudes of people in society towards the unequal rights of religious citizens and none religious citizens. My argument was- why should someone have certain exemptions from legislative policies and lawful acts, or be viewed as being less likely to commit a criminal act if wearing religious head wear which conceals the face but more likely to if they're wearing none religious head wear that conceals the face? I asked why is that Joe public and the police tend to view all none religious citizens as potential criminals if wearing something that conceals their face while religious citizens that conceal their faces aren't considered at all, it's as though their invisible. As the debate developed we got onto the carrying of the Kirpan and why it isn't deemed an 'offensive weapon' when it meets the description of all other offensive weapons that don't have religious significance. I asked why the UK policy makers allow the carrying of it purely on religious grounds when the wearer could just as easily wear a small broach or a pendant in the form of a dagger around the neck which would be just as religiously significant but wouldn't compromise the offensive weapons act. Yet nothing is said about it and nothing is done. Now this might sound like sour grapes to some, but my argument purely on the grounds of fairness and equality and if I had my way, I'd like to see the religious treated no differently that the none religious whereby the covering of the face and the carrying of offensive weapons is viewed the same regardless of faith or culture. I live for the day when a Sikh with a dagger on his person or a Muslim with their face covered, or a Christian pharmacist refusing to sell the pill to a customer are all treated the same way a none religious person would. My opinion, religion belongs in a place of worship, so does everything that goes with it, it's screwing up societies all around the world not just here. There's no reason that I can see why the police or Joe public should view them or treat them any differently, Anyone wearing religious head wear that conceals their face should be considered a potential criminal that the police should approach like they would if it was anyone else and kindly ask them what their reason is for concealing their face in public. If they say their on their way to their place of worship, let them on their way, if they say their going to Morrison, ask them to remove it . Anyone carrying a Kirpan that meets the description of an offensive weapon should have it confiscated, and anyone with conflicting interests that prevents them from carrying out everyday duties at work shouldn't be hired. 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 ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 The EDL cover their faces because they don't want to be recognised and to ape their heroes, loyalist paramiltarists. It's the same with the No Surrender chants and tatoos and the Rangers fans there last Saturday. 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. Posted by LeMaquis Far more EDL members get nicked and done than Muslim women, that's for sure. Obviously so, but none of this makes the Niqab any less of a security risk. Posted by LeMaquis Tommy Robinson has a few convictions including for football hooliganism just recently. At 28 he ought to know better. In the BNP there's a bent copper in Barnsley, a drug dealer in Sheffield and a gang rapist in Oldham who used to be their organiser. Griffin and Brons both have criminal records. I think it's compulsory if you want to join. There are loads of anti-fascist websites that list all these and many more. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Any Idea what caused the social tension? Might it have been issues with security? You could argue that if you wished. Yet it is true to say that criminality wasn't a factor in their decision. To put it in a very blunt form, it was un-French. They've got secularism much more at the heart of their society. I should do a little more research on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The EDL cover their faces because they don't want to be recognised and to ape their heroes, loyalist paramiltarists. It's the same with the No Surrender chants and tatoos and the Rangers fans there last Saturday. Far more EDL members get nicked and done than Muslim women, that's for sure. Tommy Robinson has a few convictions including for football hooliganism just recently. At 28 he ought to know better. In the BNP there's a bent copper in Barnsley, a drug dealer in Sheffield and a gang rapist in Oldham who used to be their organiser. Griffin and Brons both have criminal records. I think it's compulsory if you want to join. There are loads of anti-fascist websites that list all these and many more. Well you seem an expert on the EDL have you done a degree on them or just obsessed with them I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 You could argue that if you wished. Yet it is true to say that criminality wasn't a factor in their decision.well it should have been having been proved a security risk. Posted by Chris_Sleeps To put it in a very blunt form, it was un-French. They've got secularism much more at the heart of their society. I should do a little research if I were you. Why's that, so I can find story's like this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-french-bank.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plopqwerty Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 And how much time, money and effort should the police spend enforcing this ban when they could be tackling drugs, violence, robbery, burglary, etc, instead? Cops deal with jobs as they are reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 10, 2011 Author Share Posted September 10, 2011 My interest is in the truth and highlighting the lies that are told about a community of people who rarely post here to give their side of the story. Which is an admirable quality. Posted by buyfriday Just in case you didn't know, I don't like the burka any more than I like seeing fat blokes in the football strips I mentioned earlier. A view which you're more than entitled to express on here, but why single out "fat blokes in a football strip"? Wouldn't you feel the same about 'fat blokes in a striped T shirt, or 'fat blokes in a striped sweater?, or for that matter, fat lasses in a striped T shirt, or striped sweater, or striped dress? would they remain deserving of your feelings of distaste? if so, I must inform you that I've decided to seize this opportunity to take it upon myself to defend the rights of all stripy fat blokes and lasses that as a result of their absence are unable to put into question and defend themselves against the prejudicial feelings of distaste that you're clearly holding for them. Posted by Boyfriday It's anachronistic and unattractive in my view, but my view is irrelevant in how people choose to dress. Your view is bigoted, petty and prejudicial also. Perhaps your clients would prefer a new lawyer. Posted by boyfriday Just for the record if you're encouraging my withdrawal from the thread because I have no stated interest in the subject matter, what's your interest or anyone else here who objects to it, one thing's for sure no ones compelling any of you to wear this garment. BF. Why would you think anyone against it would want to wear it?, and more to the point, why is it that you feel so strongly opposed to criticism of Islamic attire that you feel you're ethically and morally obliged take it upon yourself to put forward an argument on behalf of the muslim community during their absence on this debate, then openly admit that you consider fat people in football attire equally as unattractive as those ruddy Niqabs? Your argument is beginning to look insincere and pretentious my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.