(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 7:00 am)pocaracas Wrote: Double standard much?
In Iran and other muslim countries people are forbidden from wearing:
- Shorts
- Skirts that show any leg
- T-shirts
- Just any clothing that shows any skin besides face and hands.

These people left their home countries to find a better living abroad and now want to mold the other places of the world to resemble their home countries?!
Stupidity at work!

The law exists, you break it, your visa gets revoked, you go back to wherever you came from.
If you were born in this country, but still want to abide by the stupid religious rules, do so in private. It's a secular country. What you can and can't do in public is regulated. Just as much as you can't wear a face mask, you also can't be naked in public.

How do you get from wearing a face covering to wanting to mould the country into a muslim state?!

Oh quite easily...
Your very own UK already has a few places where Sharia Law is enforced. Look it up. They want the same all over Europe... first in small groups and in secrecy, then out in broad day light and there isn't much that european governments are willing to do to squash these parallel justice systems... France here is one example of trying to do just that... and some people complain!

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Wearing a face covering is just... wearing a face covering. Its a personal choice, It ain't moulding shit! Now if they were saying EVERYONE should wear one you might have a point. But aside from a few loony jihadist who can be ignored, thats not the case!

Bank robbers and other similar no-gooders wear face masks to avoid detection... should such masking be allowed or disallowed?
Could a religious covering be allowed so that bank robberies would be performed by people wearing such covering?

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: As to what is done in public being regulated, there are generally reasons for that. "because I don't like what it represents" is not a good one! Once you open that pandoras box, what next? Who decides what is an OK religious or political symbol and what is not? Who decides that burkas are not ok, but rasta hats or dreadlocks are. Or Crucifixes. Or those little hats Jews wear. Or the CND logo. Or Greenpeace.

I never went there. I remained in the face covering detail which can be an issue of security, defeating your UK-beloved CCTV.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I think the difference between a country where you are not allowed to wear shorts and one you are is the freedom to choose. Otherwise the only difference between us and them in regards to clothing is what item of clothing it is! That over there they don't let you wear thing A and over here they don't let you wear thing B. That makes us different to them to be sure, but does it make us any better?

My point is that they have no right to feel any indignation for being prevented from wearing something, since their home country's rules also have similar prohibitions.
Hence my mentioning of a double standard.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: To me it seems like the exact same principle. Banning an item of clothing because the government does not like what it represents. Its not ok when Iran does it and it makes me deeply uncomfortable when a western democracy does it.

Like Beccs said, they made "it all face hiding garments", not just religious ones, not just cultural ones, not just criminal ones, ALL.
What use is CCTV when everyone hides their faces?
Crime would go rampant if anyone was allowed to walk around with their face covered up and the police would have no way of detecting and catching the criminals.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm quite surprised I'm the only one here who seems to have a problem with this. Are there any other religious symbols or items of clothes people want to be made illegal?

Here's a good one:

(July 2, 2014 at 5:31 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 2:48 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I think this is exactly the same as gay marriage. Don't want one? Don't get one. But don't take it on yourself to stop other people getting one!

I would agree if this dress code were simply voluntary. I can't argue that some muslim women volunteer to abide, but some women go to great lengths to protest the dress code. How can we determine if someone really likes the trash bag look, versus being forced to wear it by someone that will at a minimum beat the shit out of them for disobedience? The idea of compulsion makes your gay marriage analogy untenable.

I too have qualms about this ban, especially since one of the exceptions to the rule is religious processions. I don't think it's a public safety issue. It's anti Muslim pure and simple. And while I don't like Islam I do believe in freedom of religion.

The problem is as Cato points out that it really is difficult to tell how voluntary it is on the part of women.

I think France might do better to really enforce existing French laws about spouse and child abuse in the Muslim community rather than letting those things slide as "cultural."

But I must admit, a small mean part of my brain says "Yay France."

Can you tell I'm confused and torn?

Maybe France negotiates reciprocal agreements with various countries supplying the most immigrants ??

Might be handy for female French tourists in Mecca to be able to have a little wine with their meals while on holiday. While wearing their 'traditional' French maid outfits.

(July 2, 2014 at 2:48 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I think this is exactly the same as gay marriage. Don't want one? Don't get one. But don't take it on yourself to stop other people getting one!

This tactic is not exactly unknown. Do a Google search yourself for female suicide bomber.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28...15280.html

Quote:BAGHDAD — Female suicide bombers struck a Shiite pilgrimage in Baghdad and a Kurdish protest rally in northern Iraq on Monday, killing at least 57 people and wounding nearly 300, police said.

Quote:Women are more easily able to hide explosives under their all-encompassing black Islamic robes, or abayas, and often are not searched at checkpoints because of sensitivities.

(July 2, 2014 at 10:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: Here's a good one:

why wouldn't you want to dress like aghost?

(July 2, 2014 at 10:59 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 5:31 am)Cato Wrote: I would agree if this dress code were simply voluntary. I can't argue that some muslim women volunteer to abide, but some women go to great lengths to protest the dress code. How can we determine if someone really likes the trash bag look, versus being forced to wear it by someone that will at a minimum beat the shit out of them for disobedience? The idea of compulsion makes your gay marriage analogy untenable.

I too have qualms about this ban, especially since one of the exceptions to the rule is religious processions. I don't think it's a public safety issue. It's anti Muslim pure and simple. And while I don't like Islam I do believe in freedom of religion.

The problem is as Cato points out that it really is difficult to tell how voluntary it is on the part of women.

I think France might do better to really enforce existing French laws about spouse and child abuse in the Muslim community rather than letting those things slide as "cultural."

But I must admit, a small mean part of my brain says "Yay France."

Can you tell I'm confused and torn?

This is not anti-islam, this is a matter of public security. I wont' trust anyone who's wearing a mask. If Christian women wore the same attires the measure would be equal. Just like you can't go out wearing a bandanna or another kind of mask

---

(July 2, 2014 at 10:23 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 7:39 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: How do you get from wearing a face covering to wanting to mould the country into a muslim state?!

Oh quite easily...
Your very own UK already has a few places where Sharia Law is enforced. Look it up. They want the same all over Europe... first in small groups and in secrecy, then out in broad day light and there isn't much that european governments are willing to do to squash these parallel justice systems... France here is one example of trying to do just that... and some people complain!

The Sharia Law being enforced is true. Some parties have accused muslim communities all over europe of doing so. Why is it that if I'm an atheist in their States I get executed or jailed, but they already need to have a special right to change other people's culture? This is the way multiculturalism and acceptance isn't meant to be used god dammit

How about this one?

-I'd ask Cinjin to photoshop a veil into this....but it would be too difficult to tell the difference to be worth the effort

"I'm sorry that your religious and cultural mores don't really fit into a society that is attempting to protect and secure the well being of it;s inhabitants. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not allowed to release fireships chock full of virgins into the harbor as a send off to my recently deceased relatives."

(July 2, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
How about this one?

Seems as legit as those weird outfit muslim women wear.

(July 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
How about this one?

Seems as legit as those weird outfit muslim women wear.

Nah this slut is showing far too much arm.

Quote: "I'm sorry that your religious and cultural mores don't really fit into a society that is attempting to protect and secure the well being of it;s inhabitants.

And largely protect them from crazy allah-freak nutjobs!