What's new

France starts ban on full-face veil

The french, Belgians and dutch are not banning burka because they hate it or are concerned about handful of their citizens not integrating or because burka is a security threat.Irrespective of what reason they give,the reason that they are banning burka is because it is a symbol.

It is a symbol of segregation but that issue is secondary as nobody cares if someone decides to segregates himself.Criminals and mental patients are forced to segregate and this concern of dis-segregation does not arise in their case.

The act of burka banning is directly related to supremacism and nose thumping done by the likes of anjem chaudhary and rioters of Marseilles and Paris.The supremacist ideology of radicals entice in its opponent emotions ranging from fear-hatred-disgust.A burka clad women in this scenario is subconsciously constructed as an enemy combatant,an active agent of civil disobedience which needs to be nullified.

It is an counter assertion of power by Europeans in face of propaganda and nose thumping by Islamic radicals and their insecurities and disgust at being outnumbered (because of propaganda being more shrill).The excuse whether of Secularism or equality or democracy are just excuses and are thrown to explain something whose explanation is more baser.

It is the reason that france has problem with just 200 burka clad women and why argument of any party does not makes complete sense.
@Vinod2070 @Contrarian @Talon @ZYXW

So what you are saying is they construe it as an foreign invasion on their way of life...is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what you are saying is they construe it as an foreign invasion on their way of life...is it?

Kind of,

The excuse of secularism always stood on shaky ground.Usually people use heavy and ambiguous terms to defend something which is much simple but has some self made taboo associated in admission.

more precise would be the catharsis that comes from exercising power on people whom you consider hostile.
 
@ZYXW EXACTLY....after calling themselves Secular they malign the word!! :blink:

THAT is all I am against!! Not against them banning face veil for security reasons...but against them corrupting or having double standards!!

Sorry I read this incorrectly the first time LOL

But yes I agree with this tooo LOLOLOL calling it a secular country and then making laws like these.....if it's seperate then why does the government have the right to do this....i get you completely :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you need to pray openly?

Praying in mosques and homes is not good enough?

They are Judo-Christian countries. Church bells go with that.

Because of the increasing population, they need more space....

So, IF they can ring their church bells according to FREEDOM OF RIGHTS the Masjids should be allowed to give the call to prayer too..If you say it is disturbing...so is the ringing of the bells every hour or every 30 mins as the case of Spain and Italy and other Eastern European countries....

Aren't you exaggerating? There are so many mosques everywhere in Europe. No one is stopping you.
Yes, there are many masjids BUT we are not allowed to have the athaan played out loud...No exaggeration at all.. @Audio did you forget to tell them this point?

Just that you seem to want ever more.
Not at all...Basic rights which were promised in the constitution is all I ask for...Right to practice my religion no discrimination

Did you (and other Muslims) ever complain about how it is in Islamic countries where the reights of non Muslims and even other Muslim sects are non existent for the most part?

Right now the thread is not about what Islamic countries are doing...Like you said they are not practicing secular law nor are they democrats....But my question is simple

I am saying WHERE is the difference between the secular law and DEMOCRATIC countries ??

IF secular countries can say impose certain stuff....why voice out at non secular and non democratic countries? They are doing the same only in open not under the SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC umbrella!

Kind of,

The excuse of secularism always stood on shaky ground.Usually people use heavy and ambiguous terms to defend something which is much simple but has some self made taboo associated in admission.

more precise would be the catharsis that comes from exercising power on people whom you consider hostile.
@anonymus more or less what I have been talking about :rofl: but you said it loud and clear...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because of the increasing population, they need more space....

So, IF they can ring their church bells according to FREEDOM OF RIGHTS the Masjids should be allowed to give the call to prayer too..If you say it is disturbing...so is the ringing of the bells every hour or every 30 mins as the case of Spain and Italy and other Eastern European countries....

Why don't you realize that these countries have a Judeo Christian heritage with Greco-Roman civilization underpinnings?

You can't come on and expect them to change it all, just because you demand it?

Yes, there are many masjids BUT we are not allowed to have the athaan played out loud...No exaggeration at all.. @Audio did you forget to tell them this point?

Not at all...Basic rights which were promised in the constitution is all I ask for...Right to practice my religion no discrimination

They are perfectly entitled to ban Athan on loudspeakers. If it is too much, people can make the choice to move back.

Right now the thread is not about what Islamic countries are doing...Like you said they are not practicing secular law nor are they democrats....But my question is simple

I am saying WHERE is the difference between the secular law and DEMOCRATIC countries ??

IF secular countries can say impose certain stuff....why voice out at non secular and non democratic countries? They are doing the same only in open not under the SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC umbrella!

That doesn't give them a free license to do anything in their own countries.

And demand the opposite from non Muslims in theirs?

Muslims need to start giving the same rights in their own countries that they demand from others.

Currently they are getting away with too much because of political correctness in the secular democracies.

Your victim complex is self created and completely at odds with the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

@Talon, It is good that rich Muslims will pay the fines, but it is more important that those fines are not imposed at all. I want to see what is the outcome of the cases that you say many have filed with the courts, and what reasoning the courts give to support their verdicts.

The answer is that they can't ban either. No government should ever be given that right. It should not be the government's job to decide any of those things!!
@ZYXW, So whose right is it to defend public morals and who defines them, if not the government? Are you saying that people who are against the veil ban in France should also speak out against the ban of bikinis by many Muslim states, equally?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Talon, It is good that rich Muslims will pay the fines, but it is more important that those fines are not imposed at all. I want to see what is the outcome of the cases that you say many have filed with the courts, and what reasoning the courts give to support their verdicts.


@ZYXW, So whose right is it to defend public morals and who defines them, if not the government? Are you saying that people who are against the veil ban in France should also speak out against the ban of bikinis by many Muslim states, equally?

Yes they should!!! Just because something is happening in another country doesn't mean that it is not our problem...... public morals and define them....no the government's job should just be to enforce them and keep order, let the public decide their own morals and define them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Caucasian Albania I agree....But, if some want to wear it, should their freedom be suppressed :pop:?

yes certainly ! individual freedom is not absolute freedom.I support only the full face covering dress for security reasons, everything else is an unnecessary encroachment of freedom of citizen, it can't be defended saying majority opinion or their country their rule arguments, majority opinion can go wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Contrarian well, then Saudis should declare they are democrats as they are clearly doing what democrats in EU are doing :enjoy:

If Saudi Arabia becomes a true democracy and passes those exact same laws then it becomes no problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes they should!!! Just because something is happening in another country doesn't mean that it is not our problem...... public morals and define them....no the government's job should just be to enforce them and keep order, let the public decide their own morals and define them.

Here's the thing, most countries get to define what they find acceptable and what they don't.How long did the states take to take a benign view on same sex marriage? Years, now they've come around perhaps. France's core population is still extant despite expats and emigrants, if they feel that something is contrary to their ethos then why should we mind. Recently a French Minister also issued a statement that any person who would promote extremism in the name of Islam would be deported- there's a thread running on it. Lets face it all countries adjudicate based on their sense of morality even the States and especially Islamic countries. And obviously people will draw a comparison, they will say, "if we were citizens of the countries where these people hail from we would not be given equal rights in most cases so why should we give them the same?" You and I may not agree with that line of thought but that's how the collective thinking goes- its always simplistic when its macro-cosmic.

But I believe that before someone sitting in India or Pakistan declares the French barbaric for this, let us remember in France you're not liable to have a mob lynch you just because you insulted someone's god or sensibilities.
 
@Contrarian well, then Saudis should declare they are democrats as they are clearly doing what democrats in EU are doing :enjoy:
lol they would need to ask Americans first before making a decision like that :pop:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Saudi Arabia becomes a true democracy and passes those exact same laws then it becomes no problem.
@Contrarian
WOW!!!! talk about hypocrisy to the extreme!! Just by changing the name of the system you can suppress who you will?! :what: :blink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Contrarian
WOW!!!! talk about hypocrisy to the extreme!! Just by changing the name of the system you can suppress who you will?! :what: :blink:

Talon, the sole purpose of a Government is to serve the people who reside in that nation.
If the majority of the people of that nation want a law then it is the government's duty to enforce it.

This is applicable as long as the actions of that government does not cause problems to other countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Talon, the sole purpose of a Government is to serve the people who reside in that nation.
If the majority of the people of that nation want a law then it is the government's duty to enforce it.

This is applicable as long as the actions of that government does not cause problems to other countries.

it's will of of the people agreed, but majority peoples will doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do, sometimes good governance is also doing the right thing even if it is against the will of the majority. we can't challenge or change their decisions, what we can do is to apply our rationality and logic and discuss whether or not it is right thing to do or not, irrespective of popularity of particular decision.
 

Back
Top Bottom