Once Again.... If You Don't Like France...

[Minimalist]

go back to your desert shithole and wear whatever the fuck you want.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900

Way to prove how much of a Zonie you are...Papers Please asswipe.

Remember, "christian" under Sharia your head gets cut off too! Fuck all theists.

[Dystopia]

Way to prove how much of a Zonie you are...Papers Please asswipe.

Remember, "christian" under Sharia your head gets cut off too! Fuck all theists.

The penalty in Islam for apostasy is death. Damn these nutjobs. And they still want to make the whole world Muslim

[Thumpalumpacus]

I get the fear people have about locations that might be targets for terrorism or the common thief but is having your face covered on the sidewalk really so threatening that "free" modern societies need laws against it "in the name of security"? Isn't that always the reason?

Having been robbed twice (once at gunpoint) in my business experiences, I think that allowing folks to wear a mask in a store, bank, or other place where money is concentrated is not a good idea.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no one here has any reasonable expectation of privacy while they are in public. I think that's a sensible ruling. It seems to me obvious that flowing from that ruling is that hiding one's identity while in public is not protected religious expression.

[Minimalist]

Yeah...if they want to wrap themselves in canvas at home, that's fine. For that matter, they could wear a plastic garbage bag over their heads....as long as they tie it shut!

[Thumpalumpacus]

If they brutally murder women and children, then why can't we goddammit?

They also stone people to death is these countries, should France adopt that too?

I think you're both misunderstanding his point. He isn't arguing that we should take their customs and laws as our example. His point seems to me to be that if they find that sort of behavior acceptable in their home countries, they are practicing a double-standard when they complain of France doing essentially the same thing: limiting dress by law.

It's a fine distinction, but important.

[Dystopia]

If they brutally murder women and children, then why can't we goddammit?

They also stone people to death is these countries, should France adopt that too?

I think you're both misunderstanding his point. He isn't arguing that we should take their customs and laws as our example. His point seems to me to be that if they find that sort of behavior acceptable in their home countries, they are practicing a double-standard when they complain of France doing essentially the same thing: limiting dress by law.

It's a fine distinction, but important.

Plus the restriction they force citizens in their native countries are nothing compared to 'banning burkas and niqabs' restrictions. They can execute someone for apostasy, but we can't ban something that can endanger public life AND represents oppression/sexual inequality.

[Mudhammam]

He isn't arguing that we should take their customs and laws as our example. His point seems to me to be that if they find that sort of behavior acceptable in their home countries, they are practicing a double-standard when they complain of France doing essentially the same thing: limiting dress by law.

It's a fine distinction, but important.

Yes, I understood that point. Let me clarify mine: I don't care. I don't care about their moral values that allow for the deprivation of individual free expression. What have anyone else's double standards got to do with our own? ('Our' as in Western democratic principles).

[Dystopia]

Another nice video by Pat Condell talking about Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Yj-lZ0Vw0

[Thumpalumpacus]

What have anyone else's double standards got to do with our own? ('Our' as in Western democratic principles).

It's a criticism of their thinking, which seems pertinent, to me. If someone's being hypocritical, then that necessarily undermines their point, don't you agree?

As for our "double standard" you're alleging here, I'd be interested in reading what exactly you think that is, because so far as I've read, no Western democracy promises absolute freedom; all freedoms are tempered according to the social good (ideally).

[Mudhammam]

It's a criticism of their thinking, which seems pertinent, to me. If someone's being hypocritical, then that necessarily undermines their point, don't you agree?

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that "their" refers to some monolithic group for which this law primarily applies. In reality, however, this law limits the free expression of individuals who are undoubtedly as equally outraged at barbarism committed in the name of their religion as you are. I suspect this applies to the majority of those who choose to wear the niqab. You're basically saying in equivalence that since there are a few crazy right-wingers who advocate violent action in the US, the government is justified in imposing law that specifically limits the liberties of all citizens with right-wing views. This is what governments do to expand their power over individuals all the time, targeting minorities first. The measure of freedom that exists in a society is noted by how minorities are treated, and in this situation, I think it is a step in the wrong direction for any liberal democracy.

As for our "double standard" you're alleging here, I'd be interested in reading what exactly you think that is, because so far as I've read, no Western democracy promises absolute freedom; all freedoms are tempered according to the social good (ideally).

I only meant that their standards, hypocritical or not, are irrelevant to ours.