Man Who Forced Wife To Wear Muslim Veil To Be Denied French Nationality

[Thomas Jefferson]

It is amusing how the liberals agonise over the right to wear the veil and tolerance of Islam versus the emancipation of women.

 

They're fake trendy liberals.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a real liberal and she needs bodyguards because of it.

 

Theo Van Gogh was a real liberal who spoke up for liberal values and he was brutally murdered because of it.

[Addie]

So this sort of face covering is also acceptable?

 

[paswt]

 

 

I'm not permitted to wear a crash helmet in a bank and I suspect if I wore a balaclava helmet in the street the "old bill" would 'have a word'.

 

If legislation is to be applied then why have exceptions? …….If my religion stipulated as a carrot worshiper that I should wear bunny ears that would preclude the wearing of a motorcycle helmet I would be prosecuted but if I was a sikh a turban is fine.

 

Can I please be "offended" and claim to be a "victim" ?

 

Stupid post.

Couldn't agree more. A very stupid post. Addie's isn't far behind but on account of the nonsense about a world in turmoil.

 

People should be able to wear what they like in public. Why should anyone HAVE to show their face? Who the hell is Addie or anyone else to say that other people should be forced not to wear something just because it creeps them out and because they have irrational concerns.

 

If you're in a bank the situation is different for what should be obvious reasons.

My point LDV ,as I posted, was why should there be exceptions to legislation on any grounds, religious or otherwise.

 

Would you expect all to show their faces in a bank ?

[woolley]

because they have irrational concerns.

 

These concerns are anything but irrational. The liberal appeasers are truly irrational.

[Vulgarian]

It is amusing how the liberals agonise over the right to wear the veil and tolerance of Islam versus the emancipation of women. Perhaps we should wait until the time when the Muslims actually make the laws and then they can sort out the problem. They won't be listening to the liberals though.

 

It's not a case of right to wear a veil being 'versus' women's rights. They aren't opposing ideas. We can support the right to dress as you choose whilst still being opposed to forcing women to wear a veil, and trying to increase understanding of misogyny in Islam. The way to change attitudes toward women is not through oppressive laws that really only antagonise radical and moderate Muslims alike.

 

For those of us who aren't Muslim women and not directly affected by the ban on veils, we should still be concerned about laws that ban covering of the face in public. Being able to choose what to wear in public is something that a state should not interfere with, except where there are real and legitimate concerns for the safety of others. In a high street there it's ludicrous to argue that people wearing a veil pose a risk to the wellbeing of others.

 

Those wishing to preserve anonymity while making a public protest are also affected by this ban. Civil servants who want to criticise the government, employees who want to criticise their employers, closeted gay people who want to participate in public demonstrations, or anybody else who wants to demonstrate and remonstrate whilst not disclosing their identity.

[Bananaman]

Those wishing to preserve anonymity while making a public protest are also affected by this ban. Civil servants who want to criticise the government, employees who want to criticise their employers, closeted gay people who want to participate in public demonstrations, or anybody else who wants to demonstrate and remonstrate whilst not disclosing their identity.

That's the most pointless guff I've ever read in my life. How the hell can you protest as an anonymous? I don't get that. Surely you have to be some one to protest against something? Or have I missed the point about protesting and it's just a bunch of dicks that like the sound of their own voice a bit too much?

[woolley]

 

It is amusing how the liberals agonise over the right to wear the veil and tolerance of Islam versus the emancipation of women. Perhaps we should wait until the time when the Muslims actually make the laws and then they can sort out the problem. They won't be listening to the liberals though.

 

It's not a case of right to wear a veil being 'versus' women's rights. They aren't opposing ideas. We can support the right to dress as you choose whilst still being opposed to forcing women to wear a veil, and trying to increase understanding of misogyny in Islam. The way to change attitudes toward women is not through oppressive laws that really only antagonise radical and moderate Muslims alike.

You are looking at it through soft, reasonable western eyes. "Let us try to understand and influence these people, we will be able to show them that our moderate way is better." You fail to understand that they are not turnable. They absolutely despise us, the way we live and everything we stand for. They want to bring us down and establish an international caliphate. Try reasoning with them and changing that attitude without antagonising them.

[ballaughbiker]

True woolley. It's hard to reason with anyone 'with faith' because reason goes out of the window anyway (thinks Spook for a start). These are just examples of extreme faith and to try and think that any form of reason stands a chance would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

 

The only way forward is to stop giving any religion special consideration and respect. It largely hasn't earned it anyway. Faith schools should not be allowed and there should be a careful eye kept on governors who want a faith school without calling it that. Religion should just be regarded as a hobby and if someone whats to direct their whole life by their hobby, that's fine until it affects others. When it inevitably will, the idea of causing offence in the ensuing discussion and giving any religion some special respect will only perpetuate this ad infinitum.

 

Before anyone mentions human rights, these are not involved as nobody is suggesting banning any religion and the clear right to participate in private would not be affected.

 

Edit for punctuation

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It is amusing how the liberals agonise over the right to wear the veil and tolerance of Islam versus the emancipation of women. Perhaps we should wait until the time when the Muslims actually make the laws and then they can sort out the problem. They won't be listening to the liberals though.

 

France of course has its own problems. http://newobserveronline.com/the-extermination-of-the-white-race-marseille-in-france-will-be-first-majority-muslim-city-in-europe/

 

(The publication has its agenda, but the basic demographic facts are undeniable.)

This isn't a clever post either.

 

The sentence beginning "Perhaps..." doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? It's not an argument.

 

It's a simple issue. If anybody forces another to wear something in public then there is a problem. That may be a man forcing a woman to wear a veil or it might be a government (or community) forcing a member of that community to wear or not wear something. Either way, it's wrong.

 

The problem with the veil is that even though the underlying beliefs and ideas behind wearing it are oppressive to women, many women choose to wear it.

No different to women going out wearing hardly anything and barely covering their tits on a night out in Douglas. It does women no favours, but so many women respond to the sexist world without criticism and want to be object of male desire.

 

The best that can be done is to change values and ideas to help liberate women.

 

It isn't just and fair to stop people wearing or not wearing something though. The first question to ask is who you think has a legitimate claim to an authority to force people to wear something. Why do you think the government can tell people to do this? Just because it has the power to do so? Just because the French Government did it?

 

I can't believe how little self respect people have when they call on government to apply force and punishments willy nilly just because it has the power.

 

What exactly is the problem anyway if it is in public? I couldn't a shit if someone walked down the street looking like a postbox. Yes, I recognise it as a mark of oppression and know women are better off without it. But it doesn't threaten me.

[ballaughbiker]

Everything doesn't have to be an argument. What's wrong with discussing concepts? However I can see why anyone disagreeing with a particular concept would then not want to discuss it lest their reasons for disagreeing become uncomfortably scrutinised.

 

As to choosing to wear the veil, you are bound to find some. A reasonable question would enquire how many really want to. I'd wager only a small percentage. Assuming that to be the case, then we inevitably return to the idea that who wants them to and why.

 

There is no direct threat from someone 99% disguised unless they have a weapon but those who think there is no real general threat from fundamentalism really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Mind you we already know that with a few suspects on here.

[Vulgarian]

 

Those wishing to preserve anonymity while making a public protest are also affected by this ban. Civil servants who want to criticise the government, employees who want to criticise their employers, closeted gay people who want to participate in public demonstrations, or anybody else who wants to demonstrate and remonstrate whilst not disclosing their identity.

That's the most pointless guff I've ever read in my life. How the hell can you protest as an anonymous? I don't get that. Surely you have to be some one to protest against something? Or have I missed the point about protesting and it's just a bunch of dicks that like the sound of their own voice a bit too much?

 

Why might someone want to remain anonymous while taking part in a protest? I thought my post made that pretty obvious. When there would be adverse consequences for someone if their identity were revealed, such as that they might lose their job or be arrested. They want to make their voice heard and join a public demonstration without compromising their livelihood or freedom.

[Vulgarian]

There is no direct threat from someone 99% disguised unless they have a weapon but those who think there is no real general threat from fundamentalism really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Mind you we already know that with a few suspects on here.

 

If you're referring to me or LDV I'm sure neither of us would say that there is no real threat from fundamentalism, but what threat there is has been enormously exaggerated. The threat from people wearing veils is even less significant. The irrational emphasis many people have placed on them is due to fear and Islamophobia whipped up by the press, government, and other elements all with their own agenda.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Everything doesn't have to be an argument. What's wrong with discussing concepts? However I can see why anyone disagreeing with a particular concept would then not want to discuss it lest their reasons for disagreeing become uncomfortably scrutinised.

What? This is the point of debate, dear. Someone puts their opinion and their reasoning and the other person responds. Yes, concepts can get discussed, but there is no concept here for discussion and that sentence that Woolley came out with alluding to Sharia law and illiberalism under Islam isn't a concept.

If people don't want their ideas or arguments scrutinised then they shouldn't say anything at all. They probably haven't thought their ideas and concepts enough to be worth discussing.

 

As to choosing to wear the veil, you are bound to find some. A reasonable question would enquire how many really want to. I'd wager only a small percentage. Assuming that to be the case, then we inevitably return to the idea that who wants them to and why.

I think a great deal of people from countries want to wear it. They want to because they think it is right and proper for them to do so.

 

It doesn't mean it is good that they have these beliefs and ideas. And those beliefs and ideas can be attacked but its still their decision.

 

But behind all this, again, is the issue of who you think you are or anyone thinks they are to say to another person that they can or can't wear something.

There is no direct threat from someone 99% disguised unless they have a weapon but those who think there is no real general threat from fundamentalism really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Mind you we already know that with a few suspects on here.

There are some Muslims who pose a continued threat. But if you think that threat is so great that governments should determine what people should and should not wear in public then I think you treat the threat far, FAR too seriously. Besides, the french government didn't ban the veil because of terrorism. It was all about supposed national values.

[ballaughbiker]

Whatever the reason for the french ban, I'm sure they wouldn't make it public and transparent so liberals, especially in other countries, could hand wring over it. They don't dick around in France like we do as anyone who has met the CRS face to face will know. I don't always like their methods but they like to confront issues head on instead of hand wringing. I think that's sometimes a good thing.

 

@Vulgar, of course the press have whipped up a completely unreasonable frenzy. I worked for many years in Oldham (in fact I'm going there tomorrow) and as a result probably know more muslims than most on here. The majority I've had dealings with are decent hard working individuals as concerned about fundamentalism as the rest of us. However they do F.all about it because of fear so the nutters get the upper hand.

 

Getting towards the upper hand nationally is insidious and slow at times but there is likely to be a faction working on it. Perhaps we should ask awkward questions like why is Saudi contributing millions towards the building of new mosques in the UK like the one in Headington, Oxford and Heeley in Sheffield. They are both magnificent buildings which I actually like aesthetically but no way were they financed locally. Google for some pics and see what you think.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You think that the reason they gave for banning the veil is a cover for some other reason? Like what?

 

There isn't much substance to what you're talking about - handwringing, dicking around and confronting issues, etc. What are you getting at? You're dancing around this issue.

 

What's THE issue?