Covering your face in public is technically illegal in the US too... its a safety thing and if you read the papers, or watch the world news, you know why.
Yep, cos those durty Floridians would fuck it!
Covering your face in public is technically illegal in the US too... its a safety thing and if you read the papers, or watch the world news, you know why.
This is done for security reasons (also probably health and safety ie driving etc) and has nothing to do with religious persecution or the liberation of women. Simples
It makes sense. I'm all for respecting ones beliefs, however, you should also respect the laws and customs of the area where you chose to take up residence. I've seen women wear headscarfs around here and no one complains about it because you can still see their face and they can still express their religious freedom without having an entire nation bend over backwards to accomodate a small minority. Give and take is what it comes down to.
Correct, sir.
Exactly. I pointed out on this forum before some Muslim creepo tried to take her license photo with her cute little religious-custom-oriented "mask." After they said GTFO she sued my town on my (and my family's) dollar. Fuck that and fuck them (and FUCK mrtrebus for another neg rep, which I will send back in double quick time :thefinger).
So submissive, these (white) Western types are nowadays. No backbone. It's because our culture's had a real spine that we created the most incredibly succseful cultures on the planet. Sure we were abusive to various natives in the process, but do your homework...violence has LONG been part of ALL cultures throughout the planet. This is not a European/Christian/White concept.
I will NEVER rest in the land my ancestors created as the Medievalists they defeated simultaneously tell us to "fuck off." :nono: By all means partake in our wonderful, fully progressed lands, by don't you dare damn tell me and mine how we need to accept you.
This has been a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the BNP.If you want to ban religious/cultural dress, maybe you should just ban every form of it across the board. Sikhs should not be able to wear their head wraps and beards, Orthodox Jews should not be able to wear their uniforms, hats, and beards. No red dots on the foreheads for Hindus etc. They should instead reform their immigration policies that allowed these intruders to come into their country to begin with, instead of regulating how they dress once they are already in the door. Offer incentives to repatriate these undesirable foreigners back to their countries of origin, offer them money to leave if need be, and stop new immigration before it happens.
Can you please explain how criminalising women for wearing an item of clothing is a step forward in freeing them from oppression?What Orthodox Jews and Sikhs wear is not considered oppressive. What is oppressive is muslim veil, burqa etc.
Since Europe is progressive is must ban clothing deemed oppressive to women.
wow theres 500,000 muslims in Belguim?
Well I'll be Van Damned......
I thought Belguim was for Belgian people.
Hang your heads in shame Belgians!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8652861.stm
"Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million."
So what's the fucking point!
It's funny how all these people who complain about a big State interfering with their lives suddenly abandon their libertarian consciences when it comes to the State dictating the clothing choices of unpopular minorities. But then, you have to sort of expect that around Freeones nowadays. I've never posted very frequently, but I've been around for long enough to see that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. There used to be a good range of opinions, but most of the regular posters now seem to be a particular type of American right-winger, some of whom have even exposed their affinity for white nationalist groups in the past. There's nothing to argue with people like that - they're just too far gone.
This law is purely for political purposes, to appease the growing xenophobia stirred up by hard right parties like Vlaams Belang in Belgium. If there was a security concern, they should have expressed that by enacting a law banning anything that obscures the face. Why no ban on hoodies, baseball caps, and scarf combinations? Because it's not simply about security. It's about being seen to be hard on the foreigner.
The whole 'oppression of women' argument is as ludicrous as the argument that pornography or miniskirts should be banned because they are associated with the degradation and oppression of women. There are clearly examples of that, but there are also plenty of examples where the opposite is true. Conceptions of modesty differ not only between cultures, but also between individuals.
Amnesty International's reaction:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18736
It's funny how all these people who complain about a big State interfering with their lives suddenly abandon their libertarian consciences when it comes to the State dictating the clothing choices of unpopular minorities. But then, you have to sort of expect that around Freeones nowadays. I've never posted very frequently, but I've been around for long enough to see that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. There used to be a good range of opinions, but most of the regular posters now seem to be a particular type of American right-winger, some of whom have even exposed their affinity for white nationalist groups in the past. There's nothing to argue with people like that - they're just too far gone.
This law is purely for political purposes, to appease the growing xenophobia stirred up by hard right parties like Vlaams Belang in Belgium. If there was a security concern, they should have expressed that by enacting a law banning anything that obscures the face. Why no ban on hoodies, baseball caps, and scarf combinations? Because it's not simply about security. It's about being seen to be hard on the foreigner.
The whole 'oppression of women' argument is as ludicrous as the argument that pornography or miniskirts should be banned because they are associated with the degradation and oppression of women. There are clearly examples of that, but there are also plenty of examples where the opposite is true. Conceptions of modesty differ not only between cultures, but also between individuals.
Amnesty International's reaction:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18736