Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[Washington Resistance Army]

They didn't brake international laws.

Yes they did. International Law says that we have freedom of religion, which Latvia broke.

Latvia isn't violating the freedom of religion wholesale, much in the same way that France isn't. I personally disagree with the ban but that's taking it a bit far.

[Teemant]

They didn't brake international laws.

Yes they did. International Law says that we have freedom of religion, which Latvia broke.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

When France banned Burqa the European Court of Human Rights said it was legal.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The theory is that Islamic culture would spread over time from and European culture and possibly the white race itself would cease to exist and eventually shariah law would be implemented. In other words "Eurabia" would form sort of speak. This is from the dominant nature of Islam, such as "Je suis Charlie" and the nature of Islamic actions int he middle east and way of life that tends to stamp other cultures out. This is also predicted because Islamic birth rates don't go down like whites, so the theory is that muslims will quite litteraly outbreed the native population in a slow motion invasion. Sorry for spelling errors

It's a silly fear, really, and it isn't any different than similar fears against Hispanics in the U.S..

I do agree that there is a strong element of domination and control in Islam, though it's not really any different from Christianity in that respect. Developing countries generally have a higher birthrate than developed countries, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. After a few generations, their birthrates would likely match those of "whites".

True. And I like how you put 'whites' in quotation. It's an incorrect term, same as saying black, yellow and red. Those terms should only be used in context of a situation, but not in casual conversation IMO.

[Scomagia]

I've always hated that argument. Trying to disown the fanatics in your religion by claiming that they aren't Muslim is a cop-out. They justify their actions with Quranic law and lead their lives (and seek to force others to live their lives) by the dictates of the Quran. They are Muslim, flat out.

So you're saying that the Qur'an justifies killing innocent people? Because it doesn't even say that. The Holy Qur'an only justifies killing in self-defense and wars. And even in wars there's a certain way Muslim must fight. The Holy Qur'an says that killing 1 person is like killing all of mankind, and saving 1 person is like saving all of mankind. So no, Muslims that kill just because have revoked their Muslimhood unless they ask for Allah's (SWT) forgiveness and/or repent. If you didn't know, I'm Muslim btw.

Of course it says that. All of the monotheistic religions have loopholes for their followers to be able to kill people. Islam is no different. The fact is that people are able to use the Quran to justify murder, slavery, and a host of other abominations. Whether you agree with their interpretation is irrelevant to the fact that their interpretation exists.

[Victoriala]

Is Latvia aware almost nobody gives a shit about them

Good. It's time every country in Europe does the same. Ave Europa.

Kekking hard there homebwoi

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes they did. International Law says that we have freedom of religion, which Latvia broke.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

When France banned Burqa the European Court of Human Rights said it was legal.

Now we have France and Latvia doing illegal things! This is really, really wrong that the EU allowed this to even happen! They need to be put on trial!

[Washington Resistance Army]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

When France banned Burqa the European Court of Human Rights said it was legal.

Now we have France and Latvia doing illegal things! This is really, really wrong that the EU allowed this to even happen! They need to be put on trial!

No, they don't. Because it's not illegal.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So you're saying that the Qur'an justifies killing innocent people? Because it doesn't even say that. The Holy Qur'an only justifies killing in self-defense and wars. And even in wars there's a certain way Muslim must fight. The Holy Qur'an says that killing 1 person is like killing all of mankind, and saving 1 person is like saving all of mankind. So no, Muslims that kill just because have revoked their Muslimhood unless they ask for Allah's (SWT) forgiveness and/or repent. If you didn't know, I'm Muslim btw.

Of course it says that. All of the monotheistic religions have loopholes for their followers to be able to kill people. Islam is no different. The fact is that people are able to use the Quran to justify murder, slavery, and a host of other abominations. Whether you agree with their interpretation is irrelevant to the fact that their interpretation exists.

But just because their interpretation exists doesn't mean their interpretation's right. And the Holy Qur'an isn't contradictory either.

[Scomagia]

Of course it says that. All of the monotheistic religions have loopholes for their followers to be able to kill people. Islam is no different. The fact is that people are able to use the Quran to justify murder, slavery, and a host of other abominations. Whether you agree with their interpretation is irrelevant to the fact that their interpretation exists.

But just because their interpretation exists doesn't mean their interpretation's right. And the Holy Qur'an isn't contradictory either.

No, but neither does it mean their interpretation is wrong. The second part of your post is sheer nonsense. Of course it's contradictory. Any book that tries to ascribe rules for every aspect of life is certain to trip on it's own feet somewhere, especially when the justification for those rules is that they were handed down by an invisible guy.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Now we have France and Latvia doing illegal things! This is really, really wrong that the EU allowed this to even happen! They need to be put on trial!

No, they don't. Because it's not illegal.

Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Freedom of religion.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, they don't. Because it's not illegal.

Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Freedom of religion.

And it's been ruled that what's been done isn't illegal, this isn't rocket science.

[Teemant]

No, they don't. Because it's not illegal.

Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Freedom of religion.

The European Court of Human Rights knows more about laws and human rights than all of us in this forum do.

[Alaizia]

A decent responce to the Islamic wave that threatens to crush Europe. I wonder how did the "progressive" Europeans even allowed them to do so.

The reason people are against this archaic 'law' is because it's bigoted against Muslims. And how would Islam crush Europe anyway?

Oh now a law is "archaic" because it aims to treat all citizens of this country equally? Bigoted against Muslims? How so? If Muslims want to go and live in other countries different than theirs, they should be treated as any other citizen of this country. Last time I checked, I didn't see any Latvian woman wearing a burqa. If these people want to live in Latvia and be treated as Latvians or any other European country, they should forshake whatever customs they practiced back in their hometown. At least in public places. They can do whatever they want in their homes.
How Islam would crush Europe you ask? It's simple. These people, especially the latest immigrants, can't accept any religion or culture other than theirs. They are unable to fit into European societies. Evidence are the numerous crimes that immigrants have commited in the last months. The Turks are the closer a Muslim people has ever fit into Europe and that's because Turkey is the nearest Muslim country.
Keeping the situation as it is, with Muslims breeding like rabbits and the Europeans still in the midst of an economic crisis (which equals fewer births per couple -family badget you see), in half a century or so, Europe will be overrun.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

But just because their interpretation exists doesn't mean their interpretation's right. And the Holy Qur'an isn't contradictory either.

No, but neither does it mean their interpretation is wrong. The second part of your post is sheer nonsense. Of course it's contradictory. Any book that tries to ascribe rules for every aspect of life is certain to trip on it's own feet somewhere, especially when the justification for those rules is that they were handed down by an invisible guy.

There's a nicer way to say that.

[Scomagia]

No, but neither does it mean their interpretation is wrong. The second part of your post is sheer nonsense. Of course it's contradictory. Any book that tries to ascribe rules for every aspect of life is certain to trip on it's own feet somewhere, especially when the justification for those rules is that they were handed down by an invisible guy.

There's a nicer way to say that.

There are meaner ways to say it, too. Neither of these facts really matter.

[Based Madoka]

And so what if only 3 Muslim women wears niqab in Latvia (which I disbelieve)? They had their rights violated on international law. Latvia either needs to repeal that 'law' or get punished.

They didn't brake international laws.

I think he's referring to this:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[Communist Xomaniax]

They didn't brake international laws.

I think he's referring to this:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Weird how it says nothing about clothing that only very tangentially has anything to do with religion. Almost as if it isn't a violation.

[Teemant]

They didn't brake international laws.

I think he's referring to this:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Im sure that the European Court of Human Rights knows this article and all the other articles as well. I'm not going to talk about law because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about law. People who work in European Court of Human Rights know about law much more than we in this forum do.

[Herargon]

Well a staggering three people have had there rights violated, at least in America they would have. I doubt the international community will notice and Latvia seems like a small country that wouldn't be on many mulsim priorities list whether they seek safety or to kill people.

If they sought to kill people they wouldn't be Muslim.

How strange that some people like Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and ISIL say they are Muslims then. These groups are infamous for killing non-Muslim. Your statement is not a valid argument; what you essentially are doing is shoving the fault off the religion.

[The Rich Port]

If they sought to kill people they wouldn't be Muslim.

How strange that some people like Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and ISIL say they are Muslims then. These groups are infamous for killing non-Muslim. Your statement is not a valid argument; what you essentially are doing is shoving the fault off the religion.

Something all religions do.

Christians bombing abortion clinics, slaughtering innocent Muslims in Africa, killing Jews by the trainload...

[Reagan-land]

I've always hated that argument. Trying to disown the fanatics in your religion by claiming that they aren't Muslim is a cop-out. They justify their actions with Quranic law and lead their lives (and seek to force others to live their lives) by the dictates of the Quran. They are Muslim, flat out.

So you're saying that the Qur'an justifies killing innocent people? Because it doesn't even say that. The Holy Qur'an only justifies killing in self-defense and wars. And even in wars there's a certain way Muslim must fight. The Holy Qur'an says that killing 1 person is like killing all of mankind, and saving 1 person is like saving all of mankind. So no, Muslims that kill just because have revoked their Muslimhood unless they ask for Allah's (SWT) forgiveness and/or repent. If you didn't know, I'm Muslim btw.

[The Rich Port]

I've always hated that argument. Trying to disown the fanatics in your religion by claiming that they aren't Muslim is a cop-out. They justify their actions with Quranic law and lead their lives (and seek to force others to live their lives) by the dictates of the Quran. They are Muslim, flat out.

So you're saying that the Qur'an justifies killing innocent people? Because it doesn't even say that. The Holy Qur'an only justifies killing in self-defense and wars. And even in wars there's a certain way Muslim must fight. The Holy Qur'an says that killing 1 person is like killing all of mankind, and saving 1 person is like saving all of mankind. So no, Muslims that kill just because have revoked their Muslimhood unless they ask for Allah's (SWT) forgiveness and/or repent. If you didn't know, I'm Muslim btw.

Why does killing in a war make it OK?

That's the loophole people talk about, FFS.

Wars can be started by anyone for any reason, good or bad.

This is why so many people have joined ISIL.

[Reagan-land]

I think he's referring to this:

Im sure that the European Court of Human Rights knows this article and all the other articles as well. I'm not going to talk about law because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about law. People who work in European Court of Human Rights know about law much more than we in this forum do.

Well Latvia seems like a small country. the Eurpean human rights court has come into Latvia 100 times according to Wikipedia. It being a European court, it is probably very busy and Latvia's rights violation put at the bottom of the list so it wont likely be addressed for a while

[The Lone Alliance]

SNIP

The UN is a joke and international law can't be enforced.

[Teemant]

Im sure that the European Court of Human Rights knows this article and all the other articles as well. I'm not going to talk about law because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about law. People who work in European Court of Human Rights know about law much more than we in this forum do.

Well Latvia seems like a small country. the Eurpean human rights court has come into Latvia 100 times according to Wikipedia. It being a European court, it is probably very busy and Latvia's rights violation put at the bottom of the list so it wont likely be addressed for a while

Taking into consideration that The European Court of Human Rights ruled France's ban on burqas and masks that cover head legal I'd doubt that they will ever deal with Latvia. They can't do anything about Latvia now.