Belgium bans the burqa.

[Karsol]

Freedom of expressoion is important, so I don't dislike the dane.
But activley banning something is different than making a harmless cartoon.
Once you show you are not hostile, they will no longer feel the need to 'defend' themsleves, but actions such as this supplies propoganda to the imams responcible, causing us to fight against our own cause than against extremism.

Smells distinctly like blameshifting from where I'm sitting. If they can't be civilized, that is not the west's problem. It's solely theirs.

We are only more civilised as religion no longer rules our politics, if we were still under the yoke of a totalitarian rome, how many protestants, neo-pagans and neo-heathans would be hung for their heresy?

[South Norwega]

Where in Europe is that actually true, aside from Germany

In our country(Netherlands) it is.

3/50. Oh noes.

Maybe you should look it up, it is forbidden in most European countries.

What exactly is your point?

That's Holocaust Denial, and not National Socialist Symbolism.

That's banned in less than ten countries, I think. Somewhere around five in Europe.

[Ifreann]

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

Need to get your story straight. First you said that dresses were male oppression. Well, western society != male oppression.

Need to read the post I was quoting. I'll spell it out.

burqa wearers today are often coerced for religious and cultural reasons to cover up and show modesty, especially in muslim countries but not exclusively. anywhere there is a muslim community who subscribe to such sick beliefs.

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

We pass no laws banning fashionable clothing, which women are pressured into wearing, but it's a-ok to pass laws banning burqas, which some women are pressured into wearing.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

1) Islam is not a race.
2) It affects all people equally.
3) Islam is not a race.

[Khislav]

Freedom of expressoion is important, so I don't dislike the dane.
But activley banning something is different than making a harmless cartoon.
Once you show you are not hostile, they will no longer feel the need to 'defend' themsleves, but actions such as this supplies propoganda to the imams responcible, causing us to fight against our own cause than against extremism.

Smells distinctly like blameshifting from where I'm sitting. If they can't be civilized, that is not the west's problem. It's solely theirs.

We are only more civilised as religion no longer rules our politics, if we were still under the yoke of a totalitarian rome, how many protestants, neo-pagans and neo-heathans would be hung for their heresy?

Except we don't. Nice strawman. There's no justifiable reason that the majority should cater to the minority in their own society.

[Volnotov]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

[Ifreann]

Freedom of expressoion is important, so I don't dislike the dane.
But activley banning something is different than making a harmless cartoon.
Once you show you are not hostile, they will no longer feel the need to 'defend' themsleves, but actions such as this supplies propoganda to the imams responcible, causing us to fight against our own cause than against extremism.

Smells distinctly like blameshifting from where I'm sitting. If they can't be civilized, that is not the west's problem. It's solely theirs.

We are only more civilised as religion no longer rules our politics, if we were still under the yoke of a totalitarian rome, how many protestants, neo-pagans and neo-heathans would be hung for their heresy?

Except we don't. Nice strawman. There's no justifiable reason that the majority should cater to the minority in their own society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[The Alma Mater]

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

How is it phrased exactly btw ? Am I allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on a public road ?

[Volnotov]

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

How is it phrased exactly btw ? Am I allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on a public road ?

Because of safety issues.

[South Norwega]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

[Khislav]

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

Need to get your story straight. First you said that dresses were male oppression. Well, western society != male oppression.

Need to read the post I was quoting. I'll spell it out.

burqa wearers today are often coerced for religious and cultural reasons to cover up and show modesty, especially in muslim countries but not exclusively. anywhere there is a muslim community who subscribe to such sick beliefs.

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

We pass no laws banning fashionable clothing, which women are pressured into wearing, but it's a-ok to pass laws banning burqas, which some women are pressured into wearing.

You do realize that the same force which pressures them into wearing such clothing comes with punishments like beatings, divorce, ostracization, and even death (nevermind the idea that she will essentially go to hell) if they do not? It's extremely disproportionate to compare the wearing of the burqa with the wearing of the dress - none of those things will occur if a woman wears pants in western society. Again, your original story was that dresses are/were male oppression (thus equating them to the burqa - which was flawed in the first place) and now you've change it to suit your needs to peer pressure, something fundamentally different as it stems from feminine sources as well.

[The Alma Mater]

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

How is it phrased exactly btw ? Am I allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on a public road ?

Because of safety issues.

But does the law say that - or does it forbid the wearing of clothes that hide the face in public ?

More important question: can Lunatic Goofballs still walk around in Antwerp with his red nose ?

[Khislav]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

[Karsol]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

[Khislav]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

[Karsol]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

[Khislav]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

Medical reasons easily trump religion reasons in every way.

[South Norwega]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

Which makes it bizarre in the extreme, but more acceptable.

However, wearing costumes is now illegal?

Having Emo Hair^TM is now illegal?

Better without the law,a s far as I'm concerned.

But, Police should have the ability to ascertain the identity of the wearer of said item of clothing if the need arises (like entering a place where there is security). I'm vaguely reminded of that movie about the Algerian War. The Battle for Algiers or whatever it was called, where they got a woman to smuggle explosives because the police wouldn't search her for fear of offending everyone.

[Ifreann]

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

Need to get your story straight. First you said that dresses were male oppression. Well, western society != male oppression.

Need to read the post I was quoting. I'll spell it out.

burqa wearers today are often coerced for religious and cultural reasons to cover up and show modesty, especially in muslim countries but not exclusively. anywhere there is a muslim community who subscribe to such sick beliefs.

Because Western society doesn't put any kind of pressure on women to look or dress a certain way. Nope, not a bit.

We pass no laws banning fashionable clothing, which women are pressured into wearing, but it's a-ok to pass laws banning burqas, which some women are pressured into wearing.

You do realize that the same force which pressures them into wearing such clothing comes with punishments like beatings, divorce, ostracization, and even death (nevermind the idea that she will essentially go to hell) if they do not?

Good thing we have laws against those kind of things.

It's extremely disproportionate to compare the wearing of the burqa with the wearing of the dress - none of those things will occur if a woman wears pants in western society.

Nor will they necessarily happen if a Muslim woman doesn't wear a burqa in Western society. How many women have been the victims of violence in Belgium for refusing to wear a burqa?

Again, your original story was that dresses are/were male oppression (thus equating them to the burqa - which was flawed in the first place) and now you've change it to suit your needs to peer pressure, something fundamentally different as it stems from feminine sources as well.

I haven't changed a thing. If the burqa is being banned on the grounds that it's a symbol of male oppression, then why not dresses or some such symbol from Western culture? If the burqa is being banned on the grounds that some women are pressured into wearing it, then why not ban the clothes that non-Muslim women are pressured into wearing?

You see, I can make more than one point in a given thread in support of my over-arching argument.

[Volnotov]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

Surely authority has a brain to decide what the difference between bandages for third degree burns, a motercycle helmet and a burqa is.

[Karsol]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

Medical reasons easily trump religion reasons in every way.

There is no clause in the law that covers medical coverage. :/

[Khislav]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

Medical reasons easily trump religion reasons in every way.

There is no clause in the law that covers medical coverage. :/

What are you talking about? Not wearing a burqa will not cause your face to become infected. Not wearing bandages can. Monumental difference.

[Willenburg]

Belgium is a bad word, guys. XD

Didn't you ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide?

On another note, yes, go Belgium, shame they had to be banned as they are also a clothing style, but at least they made a point.

[Ifreann]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

The main targets of this law are clearly Muslim women.

"We're the first country to spring the locks that have made a good number of women slaves, and we hope to be followed by France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands; countries that think,'' said Liberal Deputy Denis Ducarme.

[Karsol]

Couldn't that ban be racist? Like seriously, my opinion is lift that ban, for France to drop that plan and just forget all about the anti-Islamization plans. Like, seriously, just because a terrorist is a Muslim does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. It is time somebody dropped that wrecking ball on that plan, to ensure IT will never happen.

Just my 2¢.

It's not rascist, stop reading left wing propaganda.

This law isn't targeted against a certain race or ethnicity, thus it is not rascist.

It's certainly not rascist, it's not racist either, but that's a silly point anyway.

It's still discrimination. Religious discrimination. It may not say it is specifically targeted against Muslims, but the fact is that only Muslims wear Burqas, really.

It covers anything that hides the face, not just burqas.

What if I need to have bandages around my face due to 3rd degree burns?! Will I be refused treatment?! zomg they want to kill me!!!!

I'm pretty sure that's quite a bit different...

It still hides the face. Stick to the law you arnarchistic scum!!!!

Medical reasons easily trump religion reasons in every way.

There is no clause in the law that covers medical coverage. :/

What are you talking about? Not wearing a burqa will not cause your face to become infected. Not wearing bandages can. Monumental difference.

I am sorry sir, the laws the law.