Caporegime
I can only assume but I'd guess at it being societies where women are more seen as child bearers and sex is largely for procreation rather than pleasure due to subsistence living.
Angela Merkel and her decisions
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
I can only assume but I'd guess at it being societies where women are more seen as child bearers and sex is largely for procreation rather than pleasure due to subsistence living.
Caporegime
Aye. Nothing there about it being an indicator of a man's arousal.
Probably because we have a more obvious one.
I doubt it's any more so than the UK before the pill and the liberation that provided.
What I'm trying to get at is that what is deemed sexual and modest/immodest is as much cultural as anything else. We can't really complain about one culture forcing women to cover their face while not acknowledging that we are also doing something similar with women in our culture (in this case nipples).
Personally I'd go for both men and women being free to cover/uncover whatever they like as long as it's hygienic (no naked bums on public transport for example
), but I'd live with equality of sexes as to what people are and aren't allowed to uncover (so on a warm day women should be allowed - and not propositioned more than men - to show their nipples if they so please) anywhere a man can, in much the same way I think a woman should be able to show their face if they so please.**But to continue with the actual thread topic - not show it if they don't want to.
Last edited:
Well the toerror suspect used his sisters pasport iirc to leave the country.
Csnt do that in a bike helmet.
And another used it to escape via a mosque again probbsly not gonna work with a bike helmet
Man of Honour
That would be true if it was acceptable to walk around wearing a bike helmet with the visor down and opaque from the outside and forbidden to make someone take it off.
But that's not the case so your comparison isn't valid. There is no outfit anywhere near as well suited to concealing yourself and items without attracting strong suspicion and being required to remove it.
Surely if the security forces fail to remove Vail's in airports and/or check passport's, all sorts of criminals would've caught on to that by now? Do you have more details of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html
Killed a police officer, this was at the hight of the "don't say anything bad about muslims or immigrants or youre racist" trend though
But you do, in every thread that involves Islam.
Soldato
That sentiment is still alive and well here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Is it, though... or are we going all lefty-liberal and making exceptions to been seen as accepting other cultures, again?
Who cares if their mind is changed or not?
If it's not the done thing, it's not the done thing and as an outsider coming into another community it's up to you to either adopt their ways (which is supposedly the point of moving in) or look elsewhere.
If this means you cannot force your womenfolk to do something any more, then that's how it is...
It ought to, but the more we strive to be "accepting" of other cultures, the less this will change.
Oh, does it have to be on here, then?So where are all the threads on here about those religions?
And you know full well that some other religions are hated just as much.
But even if we stick with just Islam, why are people seeking to outright ban just this one aspect of it, rather than several others?
I have no links to official government websites that provide definitive 100% guaranteed proof, no.... and I assume you'll accept nothing less?
Other than that, Muslim friends, some actual Muslim women I've spoken to and worked with who explained why they dress like Ninjas, some Muslim men who explained why they (or those in the culture they ran away from) made their women dress like Ninjas, BBC documentaries, various Rights Campaign websites and charities, all the usual anecdotal and thus completely dismissable evidence. Make of that whatever you want...
Oh. Right. I didn't know that. Excuse me while I go accuse all the above of lying....
What a great way of thinking... what sound, logical reasoning... I wonder if that works elsewhere?
Let's see: "Not every handgun owner is a murderous psychopath, soooooo rather than banning handgun ownership.... "?
No?
But I still cannot FORCE anyone to wear one, because it infringes on the human rights this country affords them.
What, so by making someone follow the laws of this country, I am oppressing them?
If they have a problem with that, they can get lost, then. No different than if the situation were reversed...
So a woman being forced to wear a veil... and you don't think she could be similarly forced to lie when asked if she's wearing it voluntarily?
That same line of thinking is what keeps abuse victims quiet when their abuser says "Don't tell anyone about this"...
It's nowhere near ideal but at the very least, if you do ban the veil then you can't force a woman to wear one...
Those laws still don't stop Imams from publicly endorsing and encouraging it... In fact, I don't think they even punish them for it, either.
Honour-Killings also happen in a minority of countries, but we're not in them, either.... But guess what?
Actually I don't believe I've addressed the enforcement side of it at all, yet. Maybe someone else has, but I've not got to that stage.
It's a starting solution at least.
It's also the easiest and most likely, given how the banning of other things has happened, even if in response to minority incidents.
Which is the same principle by which people are looking to enact something here, pretty much for the same reasons.
Then perhaps they should stop breaking the laws of that country, maybe...?
Yeah, well - Luckily there are already laws in place to cover this!!
Massively increase the fines then and start chucking people in prison, or deporting where applicable. It has to be a prohibitively heavy penalty, perhaps even to the point of it ruining some transgressors.
It's like the £60 speeding fine - That's so piddly, it's almost nothing to people. It costs more for a parking ticket in High Wycombe!!
Taking away the fine and doubling the points would be more effective... especially if teh penalty for driving without a licence had some teeth.
But as is, speeding fines are more about generating cash, which is why they're still at the level people can tolerate.
It's nothing like that, especially since they would already be the majority in their own society where such a thing has no history, tradition or precedent.
If they were women going to a different country, where all the lasses already have their bits out, then yeah... and I'd certainly advocate that being upheld too.
Am I?
I dunno - What did I write?
Let's see - Oh, something about a thing being perfectly fine legally in another country, but socially considered highly unacceptable and quite likely to attract serious negativity, perhaps to the point of violence.
In other words, we already ARE like that because it's human nature the world over. Every nation has some things that it seriously frowns upon, even if it's celebrated in another country.
Right now, hiding your face in public is a big one for us and a number of other European countries.
So that makes it all OK?
I'm not arguing against specific bans for specific locations due to specific instances. I'm arguing against a wholesale ban in public places. In fact I've already mentioned multiple times that I think bans in certain places are perfectly reasonable. If there are issues with people that wear veils in a certain park for example then I have no issues with a ban on veils at that venue. The reality is it's unlikely you're going to get a gang of veiled women causing mischief at your local park or bus station.
It is NOT a symbol of any religion.
It is NOT a symbol of any religion.
It is NOT a symbol of any religion.
And for those of you in the cheap seats - It is NOT a symbol of any religion.
And yes, schools have turned away pupils for wearing veils. Many have developed their uniform regulations in consultation with mosques and Muslim governors, and this is supported by Ofsted and the Dept of Education.
At least one such case even went to court and it was ruled in favour of the school.
Soldato
I suppose it's up to the individual if they want to integrate or not.If they choose not to then it's hardly fair to attack the people who already live there for not feeling comfortable about something that is pretty alien to them. Why should they accept it?
Last edited:
No I don't.
I'll defend the right for people to practice a religion as long as it doesn't hurt others, and argue against blaming entire groups of people on the actions of a few.
It just so happens there are a number of people that consistently post anti muslim threads and as such there is a disproportionate number of those threads compared to others.
As an example, am I defending Islam in this thread? Or am I defending the right of women to chose the way they dress?
Last edited:
You only have to cross the channel to discover that many cultures think it is perfectly normal to expose breasts in public places.
Should British women sunbathing in the South of France be forced to go topless because that is the cultural norm?
This sounds like that Britain First Argument - That muslims are taking over the country because of their birth rate. Completely ignoring the fact that second and third generation Brits have the same birth rates as "natives". So yes, it is.
Again with the "forced". Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Care to provide some actual links to this? And no, i'm not going to settle for "I've spoken to people in ninja suits..." You claim there are BBC and rights organisations links to links to back your claim. Do so.
I can equally say I have spoken to people that say they wear them out of their own free will (and have already provided links that have people that cover their faces saying they do so out of their own free will. Remember, i'm not arguing that some people are forced to wear them, rather that there should be proof that the majority of people are forced to wear them in the UK/Germany.
No it doesn't, It's disproportionate in the media in general as well. When was the last time you saw a front page headline about the evil Jews or Hindus (for example) in a mainstream newspaper?
And there are several of people on this very forum that believe Islam should be banned in the UK, along with symbols of their religion (such as mosques and minarets).
It's an item of clothing, not a weapon.
So now we have had a piece of cloth compared to rape and firearms. Pretty impressive!
Well, no. Glad we agree on that point.
If the law was designed specifically for them then yes, you are. In a civilised country you generally try and steer clear from laws that oppress.
And again, you appear to want us to become more like the nations you so despise. I don't want the UK to become like North Korea, Saudi or Iran, which is one of the reasons I don't want a law that forces women to wear/not wear an item of clothing.
And that is a legitimate point. How do we get the truth? Honestly I don't know, other than providing safe places for people to talk to others about it, perhaps in the same way we help other abuse victims.
What we don't do however is ban relationships because some partners abuse their spouses.
Publicly endorsing something - as long as they do it of their own free will and it isn't hurting anyone is not something that the law should be against. Just as we wouldn't ban someone saying women should be more conservatively dressed, even if we disagree with them.
It is one starting point, which will probably have the unfortunate result of forcing more women away from public society and integration. Well done.
All that for wearing a piece of cloth.
It's very much like that - see the previous discussions in the thread.
Well for starters you seem to be directly condoning violence and vigilanteism in the same post as you write this
moved from above
...
When the bad taste is in the eye of the beholder, because someone dares to wear something they don't like then yes, it's fine.
But it is a cultural symbol strongly connected to a religion, much like many of the other symbols that are allowed in schools. There is a simple solution, ban all religions and cultural symbols from schools - but then the backlash begins when a christian can't wear a necklace with a cross on...
That's another interesting paragraph. What happened to the girl after the court case? Did she go back to the school without a veil or did she end up going to another school (or end up home schooled)?
To be clear again. I'm not a fan of full face veils, but I understand why some people will insist on wearing them. As I mentioned before it's exactly the same cultural reasons as British women covering their breasts up.
British Women already sunbathe topless sometimes, French Women also aren't forced to sunbathe topless (sadly). Pretty bottom of the barrel stuff really.
It's just about acceptable on beaches in the UK, but anywhere else and women will generally be asked to cover up. It's certainly not as widespread or open as on the continent which is his point.
If there was a law insisting French women had to be topless then there would (rightly) be uproar, even though it is culturally normal to be topless if they want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Ah, right. So that's your argument - Either I shut up and allow everything and everyone, without complaint, whether it fits in with our way of life or not, else I'm a racist little Nazi, yes?
OK, whatever....
Oh, playing that card? Well, I'm sure you'll decide none of it is valid and all of it is biassed, even if I could be arsed to do all that for you.
But lets have a quick Google and see...
Daily Mail? Nope, they're all BNP/Britain First/UKIP racists anyway.
Telegraph? Nope, they're too far behind the times.
Actual people? Nope, first person statements are all biassed...
HuffingtonPost - I don't actually know about that one, even, but I'm sure it's as wrong as everything else.
You want websites linking to accredited, certified university studies that specifically prove my own personal experiences and the words of people I have met over several different decades and which reference, or link to, numerous BBC television documentaries, I assume??!!
I doubt newspapers, first person accounts, claims from those who say they have been beaten into compliance, or anything other than data from some third party researcher will suffice, right?
OK, tell you what - Come meet me, we will go to my old offices in Olympic Way in Wembley, you can interview the women yourself. Then we'll go to Harrow, I will facilitate a meeting with Mohammed, the Iranian I used to live with and he will likely be able to do the same for most of the guys (some of whom fled the oppression, some of whom did the oppressing) we used to hang out with. The rest of it is down to whatever the BBC and other channels have on their online programme archives, I suppose.
From there, you can be the third party acredited researcher and make your own unbiassed mind up.
You're right.
I have absolutely zero academically acredited proof, therefore everything I say is false and you win.
I could claim I have two legs, perhaps even kick you with them as proof, but unless there is a university study that specifically proves that I, Tasky, have two legs, I am obviously wrong.
Great reasoning, there.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and even if only a few are brave enough to come forward, that's enough.
What links?
Newspapers?
Personal websites?
All equally biassed and invalid, I'm sure.
Remember I don't CARE if it's the teeniest minority or whatever - It's the fact that ANYONE is forced to and that it is NOT conducive to happy society within the culture of this nation.
I can't recall the last time I saw a mainstream paper about Evil Muslims, either, but this one particular aspect of clothing still keeps cropping up.
Ah, well, since this forum *is* the centre of all culture and learning, I guess that settles the argument then?
Don't like it?So now we have had a piece of cloth compared to rape and firearms. Pretty impressive!
Pick your own example of something that has been knee-jerk banned, then. Plenty to choose from.
You seem to be arguing for exceptions to those laws, though.
"ALL people of and in this land must follow this law.... unless you believe in a Sky Fairy, in which case do what you like". Positive discrimination is still discrimination and when it impacts everyone else, it's not a good law.
It only "appears" that way because you're closing your mind and opening your gates to everything. You're so focussed on NOT being racist and against incoming cultures, you're oppressing your own.
It's ultimately not about that though, but about taking away the tool that can be used to hurt them. It only has momentum because it also inhibits the kind of social interaction that everyone else here expects.
We're probably not far off that, TBH. We ban most things because a few people can't be trusted to behave.
Well, I'm sure all you have to do is get them to post a few links to prove they're voluntarily doing it and all will be fine...
Depends on the reasons they give.
They are unable to integrate with our culture because they won't integrate with our culture... and it's now my fault?
Yeah, real unfortunate.
I suppose we should all learn foreign languages to accommodate those who don't want to abandon their own, too, yes?
You move to a country, you follow their ways. That's how it goes. Why is this place such a pain in the bum exception?
Ah, well, can't argue with that kind of reasoning.....!!!!
I'm pointing out that other countries are seemingly allowed to respond with violence, yet we're not even allowed to voice a dislike of something... because that is oppression and we don't oppress (unless it's ourselves).
So why do we have a swear filter here?
Why are certain topics not allowed?
Why are we 'being oppressed' on this very forum, when it's all in the eyes of the Mods/beholders?
It may well be in the eye of the beholder but if enough people behold it thus, then it becomes an actual problem.
Connected to, but not actually a requirement of and seemingly only applicable to certain people from certain countries.
Are they hiding behind the cross and inhibiting the social and cultural norms?
From the one I read, I believe she returned without the veil. I know a couple of women at my Wembley office did the same once it was pointed out to them that they did not have to wear it in the office.
The reason given by one of the Iranians I used to hang with was, "Because I don't want other men looking at my wife".... Because *he* didn't want it, she had to obey. Nothing to do with what she wanted.
But we allow this..... why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
It is a pity for you the Germans do not see it that way and they are the ones who count.
http://www.dw.com/en/merkels-approval-ratings-improve/a-19083943
Your article is from March, try this same site but from September:
http://www.dw.com/en/nationwide-german-poll-merkels-popularity-dips-to-five-year-low/a-19521704