France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Jarvikan]

Oh yeah,sorry.Isn't the plane at level 100?

Yes. Plane comes at level 100. Submarine comes at 200. Putting submarine in building is difficult.

I can expect.When does the WMDs and rockets come?

[Dowaesk]

The last level is level 1000. Its where you blow up heaven.

[Jarvikan]

The last level is level 1000. Its where you blow up heaven.

Sounds lit

[Dowaesk]

Yes. Plane comes at level 100. Submarine comes at 200. Putting submarine in building is difficult.

I can expect.When does the guided missiles and rockets come?

Inflated condom explosives come at lvl 25. Rockets come at 50. Missiles come at 80

[Jarvikan]

I can expect.When does the guided missiles and rockets come?

Inflated condom explosives come at lvl 25. Rockets come at 50. Missiles come at 80

OK

[Dowaesk]

Yes. Plane comes at level 100. Submarine comes at 200. Putting submarine in building is difficult.

I can expect.When does the WMDs and rockets come?

WMDs come at lvl 300.

[Dowaesk]

Rape manuals are in production right now. Research is being done on best positions to try out.

[Dowaesk]

Do you guys think im going a bit too far?

[Kilobugya]

By Marx' beard, my "XP" comments got the thread to completely derail, that wasn't my intent... sorry mods ! I plead guilty of unintentional thread-derailing.

[Dowaesk]

By Marx' beard, my "XP" comments got the thread to completely derail, that wasn't my intent... sorry mods ! I plead guilty of unintentional thread-derailing.

I think it was my the quote about "how opposing hijab ban makes you radical". That started this and led to this point.
Lol

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

France: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité! The church will have no influence on the state!"

Also France: "Ban islamic clothing! They're coming for us!"

I swear it's like America's traditional anti-immigrant sentiment moved to Europe in 2014.

[SD_Film Artists]

'British anywhere else in the world who don't want to renounce their culture should pack their bags and go to Britain.'

What makes you think that those of us who dislike immigration to European countries from elsewhere in the world wouldn't endorse this statement? I have a very low opinion of British people who move abroad permanently and then just live in little enclaves only interacting with other expats.

There's nothing wrong with having a common community. The danger is when people create voluntary ghettos where the host culture is actively shunned. I've stayed in one of those French villages and it didn't feel anti-French, just pro-real ale.

In general I support the encouragement of national culture with things like the Danish plan, but some retirees building pubs in their garages* aren't going to hurt France's national culture.

*Yes that was done, and it was awesome.

[Kilobugya]

France: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité! The church will have no influence on the state!"

Also France: "Ban islamic clothing! They're coming for us!"

I swear it's like America's traditional anti-immigrant sentiment moved to Europe in 2014.

Oh sadly we have that since way before 2014. The one to make those things from no longer being fringe positions of ultra-right parties into acceptable mainstream is Nicolas Sarkozy, president from 2007 to 2012.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

On whose orders did those scots go there? That's right, English ones. Also, if you want, subtitute 'English' in what I said with 'Scottish'. Makes no difference. And the vote bit, polls show that the majority want a unified Ireland. I'm not talking about some ancient vote in the 19 hundreds.

ah yes!Because Scotland definitely wasn’t a country in the 1600s,and the British monarchs are only English with no Scottish blood in them!

Scotland was under the UK, also they were English, followed English culture, thought of themselves as English. Case over.

[Jarvikan]

Do you guys think im going a bit too far?

Yeah,quite a bit

[Jarvikan]

ah yes!Because Scotland definitely wasn’t a country in the 1600s,and the British monarchs are only English with no Scottish blood in them!

Scotland was under the UK, also they were English, followed English culture, thought of themselves as English. Case over.

Please learn some history.They weren’t under the UK,the United Kingdom was made in 1707.Scottish people came to Ulster in the early 17th century.They also didn’t follow English culture,and we DON’T think ourselves as English

[Ainland]

There are some confusing mixed messages here.

On the one hand, it has been said in defence of Islam that the face covering is nothing to do with Islam, that it is not a requirement of the religion, that it is separate from that and a matter of personal choice.

On the other hand, it has been said that measures to prevent the use of such face coverings are anti-Islamic, or even that they are designed to oppress Muslims, or even to make it appear as though there are fewer Muslims than there are.

It can be very difficult to figure out whether something is oppressive, or coercive, particularly where religions (or even cults) are concerned. Usually the victim will say that they are willing participants on their oppression. However, personally, I think it's generally a bad thing if a particular gender is encouraged to cover their face. This is not something a free, liberal society would want to encourage or even condone. And the 'religious freedom' defence, apart from being contradictory (for reasons mentioned above), reminds me of the Christian groups who said that participants in gay conversion therapy were willing volunteers, in face of attempts to ban it. I'm inclined to think that we can, and should, have religious freedom, without having to condone oppressive or discriminatory practices in general society.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Scotland was under the UK, also they were English, followed English culture, thought of themselves as English. Case over.

Please learn some history.They weren’t under the UK,the United Kingdom was made in 1707.Scottish people came to Ulster in the early 17th century.They also didn’t follow English culture,and we DON’T think ourselves as English

'The first major influx of border English and Lowland Scots'

I was talking about the monarchs

Who cares which culture they followed? Is it Irish? No? Then it's done! They should get Irishised or head back to Scotland! Finished!

[Islamic Holy Sites]

There are some confusing mixed messages here.

On the one hand, it has been said in defence of Islam that the face covering is nothing to do with Islam, that it is not a requirement of the religion, that it is separate from that and a matter of personal choice.

On the other hand, it has been said that measures to prevent the use of such face coverings are anti-Islamic, or even that they are designed to oppress Muslims, or even to make it appear as though there are fewer Muslims than there are.

It can be very difficult to figure out whether something is oppressive, or coercive, particularly where religions (or even cults) are concerned. Usually the victim will say that they are willing participants on their oppression. However, personally, I think it's generally a bad thing if a particular gender is encouraged to cover their face. This is not something a free, liberal society would want to encourage or even condone. And the 'religious freedom' defence, apart from being contradictory (for reasons mentioned above), reminds me of the Christian groups who said that participants in gay conversion therapy were willing volunteers, in face of attempts to ban it. I'm inclined to think that we can, and should, have religious freedom, without having to condone oppressive or discriminatory practices in general society.

What if those women WANT to cover their face? Stopping that is unliberal, not free.

[Kilobugya]

There are some confusing mixed messages here.

On the one hand, it has been said in defence of Islam that the face covering is nothing to do with Islam, that it is not a requirement of the religion, that it is separate from that and a matter of personal choice.

Hijab isn't face covering but hair covering. And while it's not really a requirement of Islam (depends of interpretation), banning it is still an obvious anti-Muslim move. Wearing a cross around the neck isn't a requirement of Christianity, but banning it would be clearly an anti-Christianity move.

[Insaanistan]

There are some confusing mixed messages here.

On the one hand, it has been said in defence of Islam that the face covering is nothing to do with Islam, that it is not a requirement of the religion, that it is separate from that and a matter of personal choice.

On the other hand, it has been said that measures to prevent the use of such face coverings are anti-Islamic, or even that they are designed to oppress Muslims, or even to make it appear as though there are fewer Muslims than there are.

It can be very difficult to figure out whether something is oppressive, or coercive, particularly where religions (or even cults) are concerned. Usually the victim will say that they are willing participants on their oppression. However, personally, I think it's generally a bad thing if a particular gender is encouraged to cover their face. This is not something a free, liberal society would want to encourage or even condone. And the 'religious freedom' defence, apart from being contradictory (for reasons mentioned above), reminds me of the Christian groups who said that participants in gay conversion therapy were willing volunteers, in face of attempts to ban it. I'm inclined to think that we can, and should, have religious freedom, without having to condone oppressive or discriminatory practices in general society.

Firstly, this is the hijab, not the niqab/burqa. Secondly, I don’t think covering your hair is the same as being forced to stop being gay.

[The Black Forrest]

There are always two parts to a story.

I used to work with a guy whose girl friend was part of the police unit which deals with extremists (I forgot the title).

They have many Muslims. Most are ok. There also many hardcore zealots who routinely harassed French women for not being properly dressed (even when told to knock it off). They did other things like pick on Jews and harassed restaurants for working doing certain religious holidays.

The right wing guys jumped on this. Though the zealots gave them their opportunity when they expected everybody to follow their religion.

[Vassenor]

Oh, are we trying the "forcing you to dress a certain way makes you more free" angle again?

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Oh, are we trying the "forcing you to dress a certain way makes you more free" angle again?

Exactly. Stopping people from wearing religious clothing isn't freeing them from unspeakable evil.

[Nakena]

Are you really comparing Richard Spencer here with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?

Whoa dude. Are irrelevant political nobody like Spencer your way of measuring historically relevant figures? I mean he isn't even nearly as relevant as Nihal Atsiz or Alparslan Türkes were to their time.

Thats like if I would be compare the Amazing Atheist or some random Fedora YouTuber with like, uhm Bernard of Clairvaux?

I'm comparing like with like insofar as they're Ethnonationalists, and an actual fascist with a quasi-fascist. It is worth noting that later Fascists such as Mussolini looked at Ataturk's Turkey as a proof-of-concept for their own ideas. Religion, by and large, is a check against Nationalism (there are exceptions of course, MAGA Christians for example but I have my own analysis of them which would take too much time to get into), and this is something that was observed by Orwell of all people. So, for Nationalists religion is typically a roadblock because it promotes universal values rather than values centered on race, ethnicity, or other "nation-first" ideas.

I kindly disagree here historically speaking.

Nationalism and religion aren't mutually exclusive at all. Like the previously mentioned turkish and the Bozkurt movement specifically follow the so-called turkish-islamic synthesis theory and ideology which puts most emphasis on nationalism though. And irish and polish catholicism have a very strong national component as well. Belgium wouldn exist even without it, with catholicism being it's original reason d'etre and so on. Not to mention the role various orthodox churches play in serbian and greek nationhood etc. And of course then theres various ethno-religious groups like the Maronites and so on.

And of course islam was a defining and decisive factor in algerian independence as the whole status of the people there was to no little part defined by religion. And France had historically a very close relationship with catholicism too, which specifically was also relevant when it came to the reformation and the Huguenots etc.