Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/27/10 02:47 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/27/10 02:35 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Wearing something over your face is nothing like sacrificing animals.

;;;
Actually it was because so many of the idiotiic males in these places then & even today cannot control themselves .
Because they lack control, women should have to pay...I don't believe so.
In my opinion, any man who attacks a woman should be neutered (which is another custom these people openly practiced) .

I would like to point out the killing of animals , humans, enemy or sacrifices, from the population to appease the God's are EXACTLY the same thing Muslim's are attempting to pull on over on us uninformed infidals.
If their reasoning is because their 'God' wants it.
Then to be 100% fair, then our Mayan God's wants have to be respected as well.

As for your 'desert' claim, France isn't a desert, & I cannot find any public buildings in France that replicate desert conditions in France...perhaps if there is one, dispensation for veils can be made ...& just as important, veils for anyone else entering such a building be made available.

At 1/27/10 02:18 AM, SouthAsian wrote: Why now step all over what they have worked over only to go backwards on that hard work?

Why tolerate such a blatant symbol of oppression that the French have spent centuries trying to overcome?

All Muslims operate under the specific idea of "No compulsion in religion" within the contexts of Islam.It means we as Muslims are not to be FORCED into anything whether in our religion or anything else.A shame the extremists and "liberal" west over looks this key value from time to time.

Unfortunately, "within the context of Islam" happens to mean "every aspect of your life." Here you are, trying to say that Islam is a religion of choice for women.
Just like the Africans chose to be slaves, the blacks chose to be oppressed, and rape victims chose to be violated.

At 1/27/10 03:05 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: What the hell are you talking about, "what good are they to France"? First off, you're making the assumption that the women wearing burqas have been brainwashed into a religious inferiority complex, and that's just not true. While, that may be the case for some, that's an over-generalizing statement.

Oh, so they make a conscious decision to denigrate themselves before men?

Next, how can you justify outlawing a type of clothing or behavior in order to "promote a better breed of citizens". You could pick and choose any behavior or tradition belonging to any group and say that it's not conducive to good citizenship.

True, but there are far fewer traditions that are destructive of good citizenship. What place does someone who concedes self-respect and dignity to someone else simply because of her sex have in a republic? She doesn't understand the first thing about free will and cannot understand anything about democracy.

Don't you think that maybe, just MAYBE, some Muslims choose to wear traditional clothing not to demoralize but rather to express their religion? If they're in France, the women have nothing keeping them from throwing their burqas away,

Except for their maniac fundamentalist husbands or their own brainwashed mind.

My home country of Tunisia has banned the Burqa,as well as the niq%u0101b.There is even a strong attitude of dissaproval towards women that wear the hijab.The Qur'an just instructs all Muslims to dress in a modest way.The definition of modesty varies greatly from one country to the next,so I do not believe that wearing the hijab or other form of clothing is necessarily essential to be a "faithful" adherent to the Islamic faith.The Qur'an mentions that women should wear the hijab when they go out,but I believe most women wore the hijab back then anyways,because of the climate.I think the ban on any form of clothing is really unnecessary,whether it be in Turkey,France,Tunisia,Germany.I do however think that the burqa should be banned in any environment where you are required to be identified,such as voting and getting your drivers license.Apologies for any mistakes,english is not my first language.

At 1/27/10 03:02 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: In my opinion, a truly secular country would do its best to keep legislation regarding people's religious lives limited.

People can believe whatever they want. The legislation just bans wearing them in government buildings.

That's going a bit too far. People have a right to wear what they like. In my opinion, you can wear things much more uncivilized than burqas. Hell, you could argue that tattoos and body piercings are uncivilized and have no place in society.

Yeah, like bomb belts. Tattoos and body piercings don't necessarily convey a symbol or message, and it's generally understood to be strictly informal wear. The burqa is a symbol of a culture that is in its present form wholly incompatible with European values. Unlike the United States, Europe does not consider itself to be a melting pot of different cultures.

I think it's silly to feel that way. There's nothing wrong or unnatural with shifting cultures, it's always been happening. Cultures change over time.

Understandably, but people don't want to feel like their culture as a whole is being eroded by intruding immigrants. Especially if they bring in religious extremism, crime, and poverty. One part of shifting and adapting cultures is for Muslim immigrants to adapt to European ways if they're going to live in European countries. If they were walking around naked instead, I'm sure there'd be many more objectors. I don't see what's wrong with complaining about the burqa.

At 1/27/10 03:02 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

In my opinion, a truly secular country would do its best to keep legislation regarding people's religious lives limited.

This is not exactly what it means. The fact of France being secular means that in state-run schools, for example, no religious signs are accepted. It is different from accepting any kind of religious sign according to the freedom of belief. And to ensure that, you need laws.

I am quite happy with what they intend to do at the moment, but I'm afraid that they will want to go further in the years to come and ban it everywhere, which would be unfair. Anyway, as I said before, this law is not enforceable, it's just a matter of principle.

At 1/27/10 01:58 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/27/10 12:09 PM, lapis wrote:

At 1/27/10 11:21 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Why should they ban burqas that show the face?

Because burqas cover the face by definition, so that's a contradiction in terms. Picture.

I'm pretty sure that they're using burqa as a blanket term here. Regardless, even if they want to ban the literally defined burqa, there are still people who want to ban other articles of clothing like the khador.

And there's still people pushing to ban things like gay sex. Doesn't mean it's really going to happen.

At 1/27/10 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/27/10 02:47 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 1/27/10 02:35 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Wearing something over your face is nothing like sacrificing animals.

;;;
Actually it was because so many of the idiotiic males in these places then & even today cannot control themselves .
Because they lack control, women should have to pay...I don't believe so.
In my opinion, any man who attacks a woman should be neutered (which is another custom these people openly practiced) .

I recall advocating castration as punishment for rape, I don't believe in the state but i still stand by the argument.

At 1/27/10 01:37 PM, guiguidarkblue wrote:

At 1/27/10 03:05 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: If they're in France, the women have nothing keeping them from throwing their burqas away

Well, actually they have ! What about their husbands who could beat them to death !

but how in god's name is banning the burqa going to help them not get abused? while appeasing individuals who degrade women isn't correct, neither is irritating this same individual through sanctions against his wife while offering her no greater degree of protection.

At 1/28/10 12:20 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/27/10 01:37 PM, guiguidarkblue wrote:

At 1/27/10 03:05 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: If they're in France, the women have nothing keeping them from throwing their burqas away

Well, actually they have ! What about their husbands who could beat them to death !

but how in god's name is banning the burqa going to help them not get abused? while appeasing individuals who degrade women isn't correct, neither is irritating this same individual through sanctions against his wife while offering her no greater degree of protection.

Without a burqa to cover the bruises, civil services would be able to pick them up. The husband would realize this and be forced to control himself in the future, like a civilized man.

You know what IS ridiculous?Seeing some comments that disparagingly assume EVERY Muslim man or EVERY Middle Eastern man holds such a constricting grips on their wives.This simply isn't fair to apply such thinking to every one of them.

Yes you have a fair amount who feel like living within a clearly defined boundary set upon by outdated extreme laws between man and women is needed to keep order and social peace.But you have many educated men, who follow Islam and continue to give free reign to their wives and daughters.

This is because Islam is expected to adapt to new customs and laws of the land.This is fully possible and it does exist.It's the Islamic "Scholars" who are afraid of change that like to go on about Sharia law.when we all know its not supposed to be taken in absolute terms.Please don't bunch all these husbands with the Tali ban and Al Qaeda.that would be incredibly narrow minded and short sighted.

I see nothing wrong with the Burqa.It's a womens way of testifying for her faith.it's to protect her chastity,self respect, and peity. it's about MODESTY.As long as she isn't FORCED into it.

At 1/28/10 02:27 PM, SouthAsian wrote: You know what IS ridiculous?Seeing some comments that disparagingly assume EVERY Muslim man or EVERY Middle Eastern man holds such a constricting grips on their wives.This simply isn't fair to apply such thinking to every one of them.

This is a ridiculous straw-man. No one is assuming such things. Not EVERY Muslim woman wears a burka anyway. In fact, women who wear it are a small minority of Muslims. As Victory pointed out on the previous page, those who wear the burka and AREN'T oppressed, are using it to make a political statement against western values.

Any Muslim woman who is both reasonable and free from oppression would only wear a regular headscarf or no headwear at all. They have no need for such a radical piece of garment like burka.

We can always appeal to freedom of expression, and I'm fine with that. I'm not advocating a full ban on the burka in situations when it's not essential to show one's face. However, if we accept this, we must also be equally tolerant of similar extreme political statements, for instance someone strolling on the street in a KKK uniform.

I see nothing wrong with the Burqa.It's a womens way of testifying for her faith.it's to protect her chastity,self respect, and peity. it's about MODESTY.

In a country like France, the burka is anything but modest. It only draws attention, which is precisely the opposite of its purpose.

At 1/28/10 03:23 PM, AapoJoki wrote: However, if we accept this, for instance someone strolling on the street in a KKK uniform.

;;;
As long as the KKK person(s) don't have the face covering in place...I got no problem with that at all.
Even if you go something more often seen, motorcyclists who wear full face helmits, IT is perfectly understandable, that you want protection flying down the roads on a motorcycle...but they don't wander the streets with their full face helmits on when they are not driving their bikes.
I also see no problem with these or any other person weariong a hat, a head scarf, hood, turban etc. That isn't hiding your face, & I personally find the face veils offensive & there is no reason in our modern society for people to have ot hide their face.

At 1/28/10 01:19 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Without a burqa to cover the bruises, civil services would be able to pick them up. The husband would realize this and be forced to control himself in the future, like a civilized man.

oh right; because most western victims of conjugal abuse so readily report and leave their abusive partners, i can see how a woman from a completely male dominated culture would have no difficulty doing this.

At 1/28/10 01:19 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Without a burqa to cover the bruises, civil services would be able to pick them up. The husband would realize this and be forced to control himself in the future, like a civilized man.

Either that or lock his wife in the house.

At 1/28/10 01:19 PM, BetaOrionis wrote:

Without a burqa to cover the bruises, civil services would be able to pick them up. The husband would realize this and be forced to control himself in the future, like a civilized man.

This is true, thank goodness that the only societies that still have domestic violence present in them are those in which women wear burqas.

At 1/28/10 04:55 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: This is true, thank goodness that the only societies that still have domestic violence present in them are those in which women wear burqas.

I won't deny that there's domestic violence in every country and culture, but the magnitudes of it simply aren't comparable. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly more abundant in Islamic cultures than anywhere in the west. For instance in Pakistan, 70%-90% of women suffer from domestic violence. Sometimes it takes particularly nasty forms, like bones being broken, face being burned with acid or even honor killings.

There's also a stark contrast between how we react to domestic violence. In Islamic cultures, there's a lot more of condoning and "silent approval" of domestic violence, whereas any American or European man caught beating his wife would not only lose his dignity and reputation, but also go to jail for it.

Well, Google tells me that Pakistan finally outlawed domestic violence in 2009, but up until that wife beating was legal there. But this is some progress at least, so congrats.

At 1/29/10 07:08 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 1/28/10 04:55 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: This is true, thank goodness that the only societies that still have domestic violence present in them are those in which women wear burqas.

I won't deny that there's domestic violence in every country and culture, but the magnitudes of it simply aren't comparable. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly more abundant in Islamic cultures than anywhere in the west. For instance in Pakistan, 70%-90% of women suffer from domestic violence. Sometimes it takes particularly nasty forms, like bones being broken, face being burned with acid or even honor killings.

Yes its a true tragedy and also it is very shameful.No woman or man deserves such depraving,sick, and abhorrent attacks directed at them.

There's also a stark contrast between how we react to domestic violence. In Islamic cultures, there's a lot more of condoning and "silent approval" of domestic violence, whereas any American or European man caught beating his wife would not only lose his dignity and reputation, but also go to jail for it.

I agree here.Its so ironic, in Islam women are to be cherished,respected, and loved to the utmost degree.But then you have such disgraceful men attacking women?Their own wives?Absolutely horrendous.They are no men in my eyes.

Well, Google tells me that Pakistan finally outlawed domestic violence in 2009, but up until that wife beating was legal there. But this is some progress at least, so congrats.

This is a very positive step, and a hopeful one.It's time the Pakistani government wakes up from this coma of not reacting to the issues at stake that are affecting it's people., where they can more readily come to their aid.Be more agile and swift when the people cry out for some sort of justice.

At 1/29/10 12:23 PM, SouthAsian wrote: I agree here.Its so ironic, in Islam women are to be cherished,respected, and loved to the utmost degree.

To be honest, this is not the impression I've received from Islam, but let's say you're right. Maybe you are. Even then, you're speaking of women here as passive objects who are just being loved and respected. Women themselves are supposed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands, even abusive ones, am I right? Or do women have any role as active agents who can take action against the husbands who beat them? Do they simply have to rely on their luck or Allah's mercy to get a decent, loving husband?

The root of the problem is not the men who misbehave. This is simply a symptom of a patriarchal society. The only real solution to it is the emancipation of women.

At 1/27/10 07:45 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Why tolerate such a blatant symbol of oppression that the French have spent centuries trying to overcome?

Please tell me how for "centuries" the French have been combating the supposed evils of the Burqa?

Unfortunately, "within the context of Islam" happens to mean "every aspect of your life." Here you are, trying to say that Islam is a religion of choice for women.
Just like the Africans chose to be slaves, the blacks chose to be oppressed, and rape victims chose to be violated.

Islam is a religion of choice I find.It's the insane Mullahs and Imams who brainwash their community with religious dogma.Like I said before right in the Quran it says "No compulsion in religion".Your taking what the fundamentalists say and apply it as the rule book for Islam.

At 1/28/10 03:48 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/28/10 01:19 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Without a burqa to cover the bruises, civil services would be able to pick them up. The husband would realize this and be forced to control himself in the future, like a civilized man.

Either that or lock his wife in the house.

I dunno know about you, man, but I'd rather just skip out on the apparent pleasures of beating my wife than to have to do the grocery shopping, get a pedicure, pick up the kids, and run to the bank, all while having to be at work the whole time. Just doesn't seem worth it.
:(

At 1/29/10 10:25 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: I dunno know about you, man, but I'd rather just skip out on the apparent pleasures of beating my wife than to have to do the grocery shopping, get a pedicure, pick up the kids, and run to the bank, all while having to be at work the whole time. Just doesn't seem worth it.

(

considering the lack of autonomy these women have at the moment, the husband either does all that stuff already or has a son or brother accompany her. the social habits beyond the burqa are well established, removing an aspect of it only furthers the paranoia between the two groups.

At 2/4/10 01:23 PM, FireMatch wrote: Think about it. Asking for the right to have Muslim customs respected is a legitimate request, but Muslims also need to make concessions as well. Not everyone thinks in exactly the same way.

lets examine this why don't we; Muslims wish to be allowed to follow religious customs of dress while Westerners are attempting to ban it. Muslim countries ban Bikinis, preventing women from wearing them.
the problem with this comparison is that those Muslim nations are generally great examples of repressed individual rights, whereas here in the West we have no such limitations because of our established and official notions of individual freedom.
so in essence we would be combatting the burqa while undermining our own freedoms and bringing us closer to the prevanlent governance we wish to avoid.

fighting for freedom by eroding freedom is asinine.

At 2/4/10 07:40 PM, FireMatch wrote:

At 2/4/10 05:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
so in essence we would be combatting the burqa while undermining our own freedoms and bringing us closer to the prevanlent governance we wish to avoid.

fighting for freedom by eroding freedom is asinine.

Then you have already lost, and further arguing is pointless.

... sounding intelligent while refusing to support your position doesn't help the discussion.

its a fucking clothing item, its not infringing upon the safety or rights of anyone else so just let them wear the damn things

fucking french wankers

At 2/5/10 02:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: its a fucking clothing item, its not infringing upon the safety or rights of anyone else so just let them wear the damn things

fucking french wankers

bingo; and if you want to protect women/discourage extremism, stop, and think up something that makes sense instead of banning everything that freaks you out about a tiny minority of immigrants.

At 2/5/10 02:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: its a fucking clothing item, its not infringing upon the safety or rights of anyone else so just let them wear the damn things

fucking french wankers

It's not just a clothing item, it represents a religion.
In France State and religion is seperated, so they don't want people to wear such obvious signs of religion, such as the burqa in public places such as government buildings.

As some-one before me said, muslims are pushing Sharia law in Europe for quite a while now, so its good that France gives out a signal that France values still come first, even if the ban only affects roughly 2,000 people.

At 2/5/10 03:42 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: It's not just a clothing item, it represents a religion.

an article of clothing worn by a minority of women represents a religion composed of numerous sects and opinions? sounds like a stretch.

In France State and religion is seperated, so they don't want people to wear such obvious signs of religion, such as the burqa in public places such as government buildings.

so why not ban other religious symbols?
because its stupid, why the hell would you bother banning something people wish to wear?

assuming you don't have any exploding shirts.

As some-one before me said, muslims are pushing Sharia law in Europe for quite a while now, so its good that France gives out a signal that France values still come first, even if the ban only affects roughly 2,000 people.

what the hell does this have to do with sharia law?
i don't get why people need to ban and make up laws for immigrants when current laws already apply;
sharia law? no, we have our own legal system interested in protecting the freedoms and rights of citizens.
honour killings? if you haven't noticed, we have laws against the whole killing people dealy.
burqas? who gives a flying fuck?

people like to imagine problems where they don't exist as is the case with the burqa and honour killings in the West. one of the reasons cited for banning the burqa is identification, but i have never heard of any issues with these women having to verify their identity in airports and so on.
and while honour killings may be a problem outside the Western world, there doesn't seem to be any need whatsoever to establish separate legal procedures for such cases since a) they aren't particularly common and b) its fucking murder.

this issue of changing our culture in order to accommodate Muslim immigrants has been blown so ludicrously out of proportion by imagined threats that it makes me dizzy.

Post office held up by burka-clad robbers in Paris (in French)