Iron Lady?

[Lonan3]

Margaret Thatcher may be celebrating her eighty years, but is the the mantle of 'Iron Lady' (originally a deliberate(?) mis-translation of the Russian expression meaning 'Frigid Bitch) about to be passed on?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1823334,00.html

 

Is it an interference with 'civil liberties,' a sensible determination to enforce integration, or a reaction/over-reaction to the threat posed by terrorism?

[Stavros]

Maybe the burka could be adopted in Europe instead of banning it. I've seen many women that could benefit from having their faces covered!

 

Stav.

[Lonan3]

Could this be the response?

BBC: Friday, 14 October 2005, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK

 

Security alert grips Dutch city

 

Police in the Dutch capital, The Hague, have sealed off a key government building in an operation which does not appear to be a drill.

They gave no explanation for circling the Binnenhof, a castle which houses offices of members of the government.

 

A spokesman for the Netherlands' anti-terror co-ordination centre was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying the operation was not an exercise.

 

The country has been on a terror alert since the London bombings in July.

[Chinahand]

I don't think its right to regulate what clothes people wear. It's not the business of governments, or anyone else, other than the person putting on the clothes.

 

This goes both ways. No the Dutch government shouldn't ban people from wearing the burkah, but also if Muslim women do not want to wear one, then no Mullah should be able to force her to.

 

If the government is so concerned about women's rights in Muslim communitees then they should invest in education, women's advice and shelters etc and so weaken the hold of the fanatics on the communitees. They shouldn't attack the woman herself. Either she wants to wear the Burkah, in which case she's every right to tell the government to F-off. Or she's being coerced and so is a victim and the state should try to take measures to ensure people can wear what ever they want.

 

By banning Burkahs the government is making moderates choose between the state and their community; I think that is more likely to increase polarization. And it is through polarization that the fanatics are able to do their deeds .. as it looks like is occuring today in the dutch parliament.

[access55]

What about if we all pranced about in Nazi uniforms?

[The Old Git]

What about if we all pranced about in Nazi uniforms?

 

But we're not royalty

[Utah 01]

If it comes to a choice between state and community and community is the choice, then the individual(s) should leave the state and return to the state within which the community to which they wish to belong exisits.

 

Whilst in a free society she has every rite to to tell the government to F-off (Chinahand) so does the government have the rite to put it to her that unless she abides by the wishes of the majority (the price we pay for so-called democracy) she can F-off, too.

[Lonan3]

Part of the problem is that the burka also provides an element of disguise, or even as an excuse for failing to seek work, as in the article below:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1824918,00.html

 

A Dutch city is to cut benefits for unemployed Muslim women whose refusal to take off their burkas stops them getting jobs.

Utrecht City Council voted for the measure the day after the Dutch Government announced plans to ban women wearing the burka in some public places as a security measure, and on the same day that Maria van der Hoeven, the Education Minister, urged a ban on burkas in schools.

The burka, a traditional women’s dress in some Muslim societies, covers the entire body except the eyes. The sanctions also apply to women wearing a face-concealing veil, or niqab.

Utrecht made the decision after two Muslim women receiving €550 (£380) a month in unemployment benefits told the jobcentre that they did not attend job interviews because no one would employ them because of their burkas, which they refused to remove.

[mollag]

What about if we all pranced about in Nazi uniforms?

 

 

Strangely people did for years in the top rated comedy allo allo, also im thinking springtime for Hitler by the luverly Mel Brooks.

 

So when is it permissable/not permissable to wear a nazi uniform?

 

It is after all pieces of cloth, not an ideology in itself.

[VinnieK]

I agree with Chinahand on this. It would be disingenuous of the government to claim it is trying to promote integration into our culture by resorting to means that are largely alien to the culture we claim to promote, i.e. by allowing the state to dictate what we wear and prohibit whatever expressions of religion we see fit.

 

With regards to the (flawed) comparison with a Nazi uniform, I don't think it is expressly illegal, but could be deemed an attempt to incite a breach of the peace, especially if complaints were made.

 

It is after all pieces of cloth, not an ideology in itself

 

That's simply a variation on the adolescent cry of "it's just words!" whenever they are berated for swearing.

 

The point is that Nazi uniform and profanity are not mere cloth or words, they are very powerful symbols which a great number of people deem offensive when inappropriately employed, judgement on such matters depends, quite naturally and without any inconsistency on the context in which such symbols are used.

 

Comedy, for instance employs them in such a manner that typically ridicules the abhorrent ideology and practices that the 'cloth' represents, as such there is clearly no intent to cause distress or offence to the majority of people watching in this context.

 

Prancing around in public in a Nazi uniform in public however has only three possible explanations:

 

1. The person concerned is a believer in Nazi ideology and is using the uniform to promote their beliefs.

 

2. The person is deliberately trying to cause shock. The swastika in conjunction with other Nazi symbols is so powerful a symbol in modern society and its history, and so well known in this regard, that bungling justifications such as 'ooh, the swastika is very old and actually a positive symbol' or 'I just like the aesthetic, and it shouldn't shock anyone' are immediately obvious as bunk.

 

3. The person is halfwit without even the very basic wherewithall to even begin taking the consequence of their actions into consideration.

 

In the case of 1 and 2 the intention is clearly to cause offence, either as a means of shocking people (as in case 2), or as a form of political expression (by offending races the Nazi ideology detests, and contempt of the cultural basis of which that person and those around him or her are a part). And so there is clearly room for the law to intervene in these cases.

[sarahc]

4. They're in a production of The Sound of Music.

[VinnieK]

4. They're in a production of The Sound of Music.

 

I classify that under 2. - deliberately offensive.

[mollag]

With regards to the (flawed) comparison with a Nazi uniform, I don't think it is expressly illegal, but could be deemed an attempt to incite a breach of the peace, especially if complaints were made.

Interesting but where does this leave us with say someone wearing an innapropriate football strip at a Celtic match, Rangers for example, people have died for less, but would they too be possibly commiting a breach of the peace to do so?

So many people, so many different ways to offend, in my youth people were offended greatly at the thought of the Japanese flag being flown at the grandstand, seems silly now.

 

A light observation but the point is that i feel we should not ban the clothes, but punish the intent behind them when it is malicious, not misguided.

[VinnieK]

A light observation but the point is that i feel we should not ban the clothes, but punish the intent behind them when it is malicious, not misguided.

 

That's why I specified deliberate offence throughout my reply. If it could be proven that the person wearing a rangers strip to a celtic match was trying to cause a ruckus, then yes, of course they could be prosecuted, and quite rightly as well, under attempt to incite a breach of the peace.

 

Apart from anything, how misguided would you have to be to do something like that, and especially to wear nazi uniform without seeing the potential to upset people. Hypothetical idiots are all very well and good, but the law usually assumes some degree of mental competance in people being charged.

[Rog]

Immigration has been overtaken by colonisation. In many cities across Europe and especially in Holland, France, and worst of all the UK foreign colonies are being established with no wish to integrate with the ‘host’ country, in fact just the opposite and these colonies are growing and spreading.

 

If this is to be stopped before it results in civil war, and I kid not, the these colonies must be dismantled and that will involve social engineering on what now muct be an a grand scale.

 

A common language with the host country is a must. The balance between publishing official documents in a myriad of languages, non of which are (presently) EU languages in order to communicate information to non native speakers has gone much too far and now has the effect of negating the need for people in theses colonies to even learn the language of the host country.

 

So other factors such as dress must be engineered out if these colonies are to be broken down.

 

The bottom line is that the concept of a ‘Multi-Cultural’ nation is rubbish. It is a disaster waiting to happen and always has been. Multi-Ethnic, not really a problem and can add significant strength to a nation. Multi-Cultural? A failed experiment, ill conceived, possibly duplicitous in intent, and now proven to be a disaster.

 

The banning of the Burkha is one of many changes that must now be imposed to try to draw back from the path that is opening up as the colonies that are now in place grow like cancers in the European nations.