Sarkozy to submit bill banning Islamic face veils

[_carmi]

Maybe I used the wrong word. But, if the country itself, ceased to exist. I didn't mean to kill all the inhabitants of Israel. I meant that there was no Israel that we know today. there wouldn't be this west against east or Muslims issue. The west is standing by Israel even though it has been created unlawfully on palestinian land

I think that one way or another there'd be an muslim vs west issue regardless of Israel's existence or nonexistence. This issue is bigger than Israel and if you can't acknowledge that, you're an idiot. There are economic reasons, cultural conflicts, etc.

What pisses me off, and I saw it was mentioned on the 1st page by SOFI and someone else (I couldn't bother reading the pages 2-10), is how those muslim people have more rights than I do in my own country. We let them vote with their face covered (and therefore not able to really identify them), we open pools for women only because they can't be seen by men, etc.

I remember at some point there was suggestions that the Sharia should be integrated in Canadian laws. Are you fucking kidding me? They come to our country for a better life and to get out of those laws so they can implement them here? Fuck you.

I'm all for respect, but don't disrespect the people of the country you immigrated in and take advantage of your minority status.

 

[Jurhum]

I think that one way or another there'd be an muslim vs west issue regardless of Israel's existence or nonexistence. This issue is bigger than Israel and if you can't acknowledge that, you're an idiot. There are economic reasons, cultural conflicts, etc.

What pisses me off, and I saw it was mentioned on the 1st page by SOFI and someone else (I couldn't bother reading the pages 2-10), is how those muslim people have more rights than I do in my own country. We let them vote with their face covered (and therefore not able to really identify them), we open pools for women only because they can't be seen by men, etc.

I remember at some point there was suggestions that the Sharia should be integrated in Canadian laws. Are you fucking kidding me? They come to our country for a better life and to get out of those laws so they can implement them here? Fuck you.

I'm all for respect, but don't disrespect the people of the country you immigrated in and take advantage of your minority status.

You are a woman. Your opinion is of no significance.

 

[masta247]

And you just contradicted your own point with the last line, because not all Muslims are terrorist suicide bombers.

I think you misunderstood me in my last line. My point was that not all airplanes are murderers and not all muslims are murderers. Only some planes will fall and kill people. Only some muslims will kill people too. But this happens and happens often enough for me to consider that.
It's more about calculating the risk. If I want to fly to America I'd be way harder to get there by other means of transportation. And I do consider that this plane might crash. I wouldn't ignore that risk so it's by no means hypocrisy. I wouldn't take a plane that looks suspicious. I would be a bit scared even while flying a top class plane.
Then if I have a choice - to take a bus with a band of muslims inside or wait 2-3 minutes for another bus I'd probably pick the latter - I'd do that for my own safety since 2-3 minutes is not much.
Both are statistically rare but possible.

About "they tend to blow themselves up" I also didn't mean that it's in their blood and that many of them do. I'm quite sure that they just do it more often than people in the west or people of different religions.

And actually we're discussing the least important muslim-related matter imo
I'm sure most people don't really fear muslims in multicultural environments.

 

[masta247]

You are a woman. Your opinion is of no significance.

roflmao

 

[Duke]

You are a woman. Your opinion is of no significance.

lmao, you made a good crack at the expense of your own religion. You're getting there

 

[Preach]

Yes, we've "decided" that, for example, wearing something that totally covers your face is rude when you talk to someone, especially in a public function. We in the west have "decided" that it's appropriate you shake hands with people you first meet. That's how our society works. You can't change that overnight. Not even in 20 years. If instead of shaking hands at an introduction I slap my head three times, make a pirouette and yell "BANZAI", I'd be different too. Should society accept this?

Society should not make it illegal. People will look at you weird. If your own belief is that they are all wrong, you're probably happy anyway. What does it matter? At least you have the freedom. Whereas a ban just creates something to complain about, no one can complain about freedom.

And also, i see your point and it technically stands, but Fred, have you considered that all this change you advocate can just as easily be flipped around on the other side? You're saying "we" should open up and accept, but why can't "they"?

Well actually, if I may revise my point, I guess I should advocate that both sides need to give a little, yes.

As to why "they" can't. This could open a whole different sub-discussion in this thread that I don't have enough hands-on details about or the energy and interest to really be having, but I will mention the stereotypical presentation of this point: The west went into the middle eastern countries, raped their resources, ravaged their towns and killed a bunch of people. This happened several hundred years ago and it is still happening. I don't feel a moral inclination to make up for the misdeeds of my ancestors, but I recognize that their actions have created a world situation where we now have a problem, and that encourages me to think solution-wise as I keep going forward. And I don't think a ban on burqas is a solution to a problem, I think it's a band-aid to a sub-problem created by a bigger problem, and in the long run all it will have achieved is more opposition from the Middle East towards the West. If the worry is suicide bombings, then maybe France will be the new target for external terrorist attacks the way America were a few years ago. That's another thing to consider with this ban. A far out thought, but I question the motives behind the ban and whether they are succeeded with the actions taken, and I believe they aren't. Partially, the things I say reflect my opinion on whether it is right or wrong, but partially, the things I say reflect self-preservation. Some times it's good to stand up for what's right, but some times, the most successful long-term result may be achieved by simply keeping your mouth shut.

And of course, your whole earlier rant about how there is no right and wrong is entirely true. It's their culture and it's our culture. Different set of ideas. But at the end of the road this issue is about muslim culture in western countries. No matter how you want to sugarcoat it, their culture is a guest in our culture at that point. Now, proper integration requires both sides to cooperate, of course. And similarly we westerners cannot expect the immigrants to fully adapt within a few years and do away with THEIR culture. But there are some things that are just generally offensive to the host culture and you cannot expect the hosts to just suck it up when it's something that's been there for centuries or more.

This is an opinionated matter. It's a sound logic, I just disagree, because I'm very liberal and there is not much other individuals could do unless done directly to me that would hurt/bother me. My outlook on life and people dictates my opinion on whether we should accept it or not.

You want to wear a burkha? Fine. But don't whine when people think you're rude and don't whine when you didn't get that job. But they yell "opression!" And then you're back to the double standard.

Here is where I agree with you and acknowledge a problem. They are fast to yell oppression, and I agree that that is a problem/wrong. This ban will in the best case scenario not affect that problem at all. In the worst case scenario, it will be another point on their list of why they feel oppressed.

 

[Preach]

I remember at some point there was suggestions that the Sharia should be integrated in Canadian laws. Are you fucking kidding me? They come to our country for a better life and to get out of those laws so they can implement them here? Fuck you.

This is racism and ignorance, whether you will acknowledge it or not. Your assumption that they came there for a better life is only an assumption, and it doesn't take into account what made them have to come here in the first place. Who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and bombed them? Who gave Israel to the jews? What did the world do when Lebanon was attacked? How many weeks did it take the UN to come up with a peace treaty that worked for both sides? I remember that they had meetings every day, and it took two weeks to come up with a draft that was later revised several times before even being presented to the two parties at war.

Your assumption that they came there to get out of their laws is also an assumption. They may very well have come there because French, American, Canadian and Spanish soldiers blew their home village up, in which case you as a tax payer who funded that war have a responsibility for your government's actions, as you took part in electing them. This opens a whole discussion about your responsibilities as a citizen.

You shouldn't close your eyes to your own responsibilities. Casey and Chronic will back me up on this as it is one of the core arguments in the vegetarian vs. meat eater discussion. Just like I don't care about the suffering animals, you seemingly don't care about the suffering people. I do. But maybe you care about suffering animals instead. It's not a big deal, I'm not trying to call you a racist or ignorant, I'm presenting the idea that we are all ignorant to various facets of life and society, and we only have hands-on information about the things we are primarily interested in. Maybe the history of the Middle East is one of those things that you don't primarily care about, in which case I understand why you wouldn't consider your country's responsibility in what has happened there. But that your country part took in a war where civilians were killed, that is a fact that you should respect. You as a French-Canadian (right?) can maybe relate to what it feels like being "persecuted", so if you use your heart's compassion and think about how many people lost their wives, husbands, children and parents, I'm sure you can find it in your heart to at least understand why Middle Easterns are so angry with the West, and why being accepted into a Western country doesn't mean they immediately feel gratification.

I'm all for respect, but don't disrespect the people of the country you immigrated in and take advantage of your minority status.

Agreed on the last part.

 

[Duke]

Society should not make it illegal. People will look at you weird. If your own belief is that they are all wrong, you're probably happy anyway. What does it matter? At least you have the freedom. Whereas a ban just creates something to complain about, no one can complain about freedom.

Well actually, if I may revise my point, I guess I should advocate that both sides need to give a little, yes.

As to why "they" can't. This could open a whole different sub-discussion in this thread that I don't have enough hands-on details about or the energy and interest to really be having, but I will mention the stereotypical presentation of this point: The west went into the middle eastern countries, raped their resources, ravaged their towns and killed a bunch of people. This happened several hundred years ago and it is still happening. I don't feel a moral inclination to make up for the misdeeds of my ancestors, but I recognize that their actions have created a world situation where we now have a problem, and that encourages me to think solution-wise as I keep going forward. And I don't think a ban on burqas is a solution to a problem, I think it's a band-aid to a sub-problem created by a bigger problem, and in the long run all it will have achieved is more opposition from the Middle East towards the West. If the worry is suicide bombings, then maybe France will be the new target for external terrorist attacks the way America were a few years ago. That's another thing to consider with this ban. A far out thought, but I question the motives behind the ban and whether they are succeeded with the actions taken, and I believe they aren't. Partially, the things I say reflect my opinion on whether it is right or wrong, but partially, the things I say reflect self-preservation. Some times it's good to stand up for what's right, but some times, the most successful long-term result may be achieved by simply keeping your mouth shut.

This is an opinionated matter. It's a sound logic, I just disagree, because I'm very liberal and there is not much other individuals could do unless done directly to me that would hurt/bother me. My outlook on life and people dictates my opinion on whether we should accept it or not.

Here is where I agree with you and acknowledge a problem. They are fast to yell oppression, and I agree that that is a problem/wrong. This ban will in the best case scenario not affect that problem at all. In the worst case scenario, it will be another point on their list of why they feel oppressed.

I don't support a full on burkha ban either. But regardless of how you look towards these issues of acceptance and deviation from the norm, you have to agree that most of western society, people in general, are not as open minded as yourself. You may not care (much) about a specific thing but a lot of people do. Now, whether these people are right or wrong, if anything, is a different matter altogether. Fact is, it creates a problem that's not easily solved. Saying "we should be more openminded" is of course not a practical solution. Banning the burka isn't either.

 

[Jurhum]

lmao, you made a good crack at the expense of your own religion. You're getting there

dude trust me. I am an easy going person. I can take opinions and debate. But what i hate is when people come at me with conclusions. That is what gets me pissed off. Like oh yeah muslims are all terrorists. Look at what osama did. U people are like him.

That stuff is just ignorant and stupid. just like this thread and how it was started

 

[Duke]

There's a lot of ignorance and blind hate towards the Islam and muslims, yes. But there's also a lot of people willing to open a proper conversation about it and they're almost too scared to do it.

 

[_carmi]

Maybe I used the wrong word. But, if the country itself, ceased to exist. I didn't mean to kill all the inhabitants of Israel. I meant that there was no Israel that we know today. there wouldn't be this west against east or Muslims issue. The west is standing by Israel even though it has been created unlawfully on palestinian land

This is racism and ignorance, whether you will acknowledge it or not. Your assumption that they came there for a better life is only an assumption, and it doesn't take into account what made them have to come here in the first place. Who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and bombed them? Who gave Israel to the jews? What did the world do when Lebanon was attacked? How many weeks did it take the UN to come up with a peace treaty that worked for both sides? I remember that they had meetings every day, and it took two weeks to come up with a draft that was later revised several times before even being presented to the two parties at war.

Your assumption that they came there to get out of their laws is also an assumption. They may very well have come there because French, American, Canadian and Spanish soldiers blew their home village up, in which case you as a tax payer who funded that war have a responsibility for your government's actions, as you took part in electing them. This opens a whole discussion about your responsibilities as a citizen.

You shouldn't close your eyes to your own responsibilities. Casey and Chronic will back me up on this as it is one of the core arguments in the vegetarian vs. meat eater discussion. Just like I don't care about the suffering animals, you seemingly don't care about the suffering people. I do. But maybe you care about suffering animals instead. It's not a big deal, I'm not trying to call you a racist or ignorant, I'm presenting the idea that we are all ignorant to various facets of life and society, and we only have hands-on information about the things we are primarily interested in. Maybe the history of the Middle East is one of those things that you don't primarily care about, in which case I understand why you wouldn't consider your country's responsibility in what has happened there. But that your country part took in a war where civilians were killed, that is a fact that you should respect. You as a French-Canadian (right?) can maybe relate to what it feels like being "persecuted", so if you use your heart's compassion and think about how many people lost their wives, husbands, children and parents, I'm sure you can find it in your heart to at least understand why Middle Easterns are so angry with the West, and why being accepted into a Western country doesn't mean they immediately feel gratification.

Agreed on the last part.

I am not saying that we shouldn't welcome them and try to make them feel like home. And obviously by better life it does include leaving a country that is currently fighting a war and where their lives are endangered.

I know and witness a lot of immigrants who come to Canada and struggle to adapt to their home without forgetting their own values/aspects of their culture. But then I see other immigrants who come to Canada and try to impose their lifestyle on us and that pisses me off. In certain cases, they really don't attempt to integrate the society they are living in. Whether you came to Canada because you wanted a different life or because you had no choice, it doesn't give you the right to immigrate a country and attempt to impose your lifestyle and obtain privileges and extra rights for being a minority.

For example, teachers in the education system who have religious holidays than the ones everyone has try to get those religious holidays that only apply to them paid. Why should some teachers get extra paid holidays because they are part of another religion? That's not fair. If you want it so bad, take it unpaid or work on those holidays that everyone has but that doesn't apply to your religion, or make up the hours. But then, people will say how it's not fair to them, that it's discrimination and racism, etc. And then the education system will let them have it to avoid that debate and being called racist. And I'm not only talking about Muslims here, it applies to all other religions that don't have the regular Western Christian holidays.

If I'd go in their countries, there's no way in hell they'd allow me the extra rights we allow them. If anything, they'd tell me to shut up like Jurhum said cause I'm a woman and I'm a minority.

And as for Middle East's history, I took some classes but there's just so much stuff to learn. I never claimed to be a Middle East specialist, but I also never claimed I didn't give a fuck about them. What I know is that there a lot of bias in the Middle East conflicts, more than in any other conflicts I have ever heard about. And there are so many different parties in the Middle East conflicts. It's a very confusing story that cannot be fully understood without understanding the many sides of the many arguments that have been argued for longer than the sum of the members of the board's ages. It's hard to take a side when there's so much at stake for all the parties involved.

dude trust me. I am an easy going person. I can take opinions and debate. But what i hate is when people come at me with conclusions. That is what gets me pissed off. Like oh yeah muslims are all terrorists. Look at what osama did. U people are like him.

That stuff is just ignorant and stupid. just like this thread and how it was started

I don't think it's stupid to discuss bills that are being passed in other countries. But I agree that conversations about different religions, and usually Middle East vs the West, most of the time end up with stupid arguments.

 

[Jurhum]

I don't think it's stupid to discuss bills that are being passed in other countries. But I agree that conversations about different religions, and usually Middle East vs the West, most of the time end up with stupid arguments.

It was a mistake. I meant the other thread. Didnt even know i was in this one

 

[Rukas]

But I agree that conversations about different religions, and usually Middle East vs the West, most of the time end up with stupid arguments.

Only because of stupid or evil or crazy people. I dont think any intelligent human being could justify some of these actions if they werent evil or crazy.

 

[ill-matic]

im at work and havent read much of this thread and the bill.

can someone please let me know if this includes head scarves, or are we just talking about the full islamic dress where only the eyes can be seen?

 

[Glockmatic]

This is just for full dress that only show the eyes. Technically not "islamic dress". Headscarves were banned from public schools along with other religious symbols (such as wearing a cross).

I'm sure if Israel somehow dissolved there would still be anger to the west, "Because of the west the Ottoman Empire no longer exists! It's all their fault!" "We still hate you for the crusades!"

 

[S O F I]

Throughout these three related threads, one thing that has come up is the notion that Muslims who wish to come live in your country must integrate and be treated equally. There's an implication in your language that the countries who allow Muslim immigrants to immigrate do it out of some sort of pity and not because they want them to. The reality is, some Muslim populations exist in European countries because of historical colonial fuckery. But most of the time, the answer is in the demographics. Preach is asking why Norway is building mosques and not fixing pot holes in the road. Well, your country barely registers a positive population growth rate. (Also, your country is shitty except for your precious oil HEHE). How do you expect an economy to grow if the population is not growing? Demographics.

 

[Preach]

Throughout these three related threads, one thing that has come up is the notion that Muslims who wish to come live in your country must integrate and be treated equally. There's an implication in your language that the countries who allow Muslim immigrants to immigrate do it out of some sort of pity and not because they want them to. The reality is, some Muslim populations exist in European countries because of historical colonial fuckery. But most of the time, the answer is in the demographics. Preach is asking why Norway is building mosques and not fixing pot holes in the road. Well, your country barely registers a positive population growth rate. (Also, your country is shitty except for your precious oil HEHE). How do you expect an economy to grow if the population is not growing? Demographics.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

First of all, we don't need our economy so long as it is sustainable, and as long as our oil reserves last, it will be. I don't have to worry about it. Considering the oil reserves have their limitations in the fact that oil will at some point run out, population growth would actually be counter-productive to a stable economy in the long run. Besides that, you are wrong on many accounts about my country in my so heartfelt opinion, but that's besides the matter.

My response was in context of Shanin suggesting that fighting oppression with oppression is counter-productive and wrong, and I proposed that from the French' perspective, that's not what it is about. They are not oppressing oppressors. They are simply doing what we are not. I didn't ask why we build mosques and why we don't fill pot holes with the money instead, I simply stated that that is the way things work here, and I think I did so without stating an explicit opinion about that fact.

Conclusively, throughout the three threads I have been arguing that the French are probably not doing this out of moral beliefs, but out of self-preservation and fear of the unknown. Further, I have tried to advocate why this is an ethically bad way to go about it, and even proposed potential long-term harms that the ban might impose. In one of my posts directed at Carmi I talk about her country's, as well as many other countries' participation in the besieging of Afghanistan and Iraq while neglecting the conflict between HAMAS and Israel. Coincidentally, the U.S. only had monetary gains from invading the first two countries. Lebanon is almost not even on the map. I went on to suggest that she, as a tax payer and voter, has a responsibility for the actions taken by her government, as do we all if we truly proclaim to be democratic. Democracy can't just be desirable when it's comfortable, if we're gonna be a democracy we better realize the moral implications - You as a citizen are indirectly responsible for the actions of the representatives you have elected. It's still a responsibility. When she suggested these people come to our countries for a better life, I explicitly countered that with the argument that just because they are accepted into our country doesn't mean they immediately feel gratification. I used those exact words. So far I don't see how any of that disagrees with any of what you said.

 

[yak pac fatal]

Suntanned women to be arrested, imprisoned under Islamic dress code

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran's police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: "The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

"We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

Iran's Islamic leadership has in recent weeks launched a scaremongering campaign to persuade the population that vice is sweeping the streets of the capital. National law stipulates that women wear headscarves and shape shrouding cloaks but many women, particularly in the capital, spend heavily on fashions that barely adhere to the regulations.

The announcement came shortly after Ayatollah Kazim Sadighi, a leading cleric, warned that women who dressed immodestly disturbed young men and the consequent agitation caused earthquakes.

Another preacher warned Tehran's citizens to flee before the inevitable punishment for flagrant behaviour was visited on the city.

"Go on the streets and repent for your sins," Ayatollah Aziz Khoshvaqt, one of the country's highest clerics, told worshippers during a recent sermon in northern Tehran. "A holy torment is upon us. Leave town."

Suntanned women to be arrested under Islamic dress code - Telegraph

 

[Rukas]

^^ That deserves it's own thread lol.

 

[_carmi]

So I have a related story regarding Islamic dress codes.

I went to a private Christian high school who accepted students from other religions who still took the religion classes like any other regular student. However, there was still one student who was a Muslim that wasn't allowed to wear a headscarf and therefore had to show her hair... Once the students in our year graduated, she went to complain to a journal about how she was prevented from practising her religion. We had Jews, we had Christians, we had Buddhist students whom never complained. But she had to. And I found it ironic that you are going to a private Christian high school but complain you can't practice your religion. I mean, what do you fucking expect? Change schools if you're not happy.

But then other schools, like the public high school where my sisters go, chose to include the scarf in their uniform and made one with the school's logo to accommodate them. And although it stem some kind of controversy, I agreed with the school's decision because a public school should permit any student to wear a piece of clothing that their religion requires as long as it's safe (so no knives, no headscarves that hide the whole face, etc.)