Woman in face veil detained as France enforces ban
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, April 3, 2021 17:04
VIEWED: 21307
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
A woman has been detained in France for wearing an Islamic veil across her face, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.
Police said she was held not because of her veil but for taking part in an unauthorised protest against the ban.
France is the first country in Europe to ban publicly a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.
Anyone caught breaking the law will be liable to a fine of 150 euros (£133, $217) and a citizenship course.
People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.
Under the law, any woman - French or foreign - walking on the street or in a park in France and wearing a face-concealing veil such as the niqab or burka can be stopped by police and given a fine.
It is a small fine, but symbolically this is a huge change, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris.
Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street, but should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification.
The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality.
The new law has angered some Muslims and libertarians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
France is one of the most openly racist places in Europe. There are a lot of French who are no racist of course. But those who are racist have a lot of clout.
It's like being in Alabama or Mississippi. You get used to it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?
She should move to New York...no wait no hoods or masks there either.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't like the veil, but then I don't like the law against it. These women will be able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and I wish them luck.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
President Sarkozy is a CIA jew from USA.
CIA jews carried out 9/11 as confessed by a jew in Operation Northwoods.
The world needs to ban jews.
And kill all Israelis for attacking the USS Liberty.
A few jews might be reeducated in their own FEMA camps, but all jew religions must be banned forever.
The rest of the jews can be tortured without trial in their own Gitmo death camps, as allowed by their own laws.
All the Arabs Semites wanted to do was sell us cheap oil at 5-cents per gallon, and have banks that ban interest on loans.
It's the jewish banksters on Wall Street who have always set the price of oil skyhigh worldwide.
Or do you want a global jewish fascist dictatorship based in JeruSALEM worshipping Molech?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wonder if the policy is driven by France or the EU.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
A woman has been detained in France for wearing an Islamic veil across her face, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.
Police said she was held not because of her veil but for taking part in an unauthorised protest against the ban.
France is the first country in Europe to ban publicly a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.
Anyone caught breaking the law will be liable to a fine of 150 euros (£133, $217) and a citizenship course.
People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.
Under the law, any woman - French or foreign - walking on the street or in a park in France and wearing a face-concealing veil such as the niqab or burka can be stopped by police and given a fine.
It is a small fine, but symbolically this is a huge change, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris.
Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street, but should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification.
The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality.
The new law has angered some Muslims and libertarians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Hello,
I am glad that this ridiculous law will finally be struck down. I have been waiting for someone to be arrested. Now the country will be introduced to the idea, in front of the whole world, that you can't force someone what to wear on the basis of human rights.
Choosing how to clothe yourself is a human right. Even if no one agrees with your choices. Telling people they can't wear veils is as ridiculous as telling people they can't wear ill-fitting pants. You can't protect freedom by destroying it. You can't create a more just society by committing an injustice.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Choosing how to clothe yourself is a human right. Even if no one agrees with your choices. Telling people they can't wear veils is as ridiculous as telling people they can't wear ill-fitting pants. You can't protect freedom by destroying it. You can't create a more just society by committing an injustice.
Amen, Halleleuah, Peanut Butter.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.
...I can always just stay indoors...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is, like, the stupidest law I've heard of in ... "What kind of crappy planet is that?" Mal about Triumph.
Words can't describe how stupid this law is. Pathetic and rediculous, whoever passed that law needs to be smacked around some, oh, I have a new law, they can't wear their fancy suits because if they do then people will feel unequal because not everyone can afford such suits, so the government people aren't allowed to wear them anymore.
You couldn't pay me to live in France, rutting control freaks. I hope that someone strikes down this law and then everyone throws tomatoes at the originators, oh maybe tomatoes are against the law in France too because some people might be allergic to them, so for equality's sake no one gets to eat them.
Well Byte, there are places you can do that, :) Although I don't know if they have those places in your state.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
You couldn't pay me to live in France, rutting control freaks. I hope that someone strikes down this law and then everyone throws tomatoes at the originators, oh maybe tomatoes are against the law in France too because some people might be allergic to them, so for equality's sake no one gets to eat them.
American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.
I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.
Here's a summary of bans on displaying outward religious symbols, most notably the burqa.
FRANCE
France has become the first European country to ban the full-face Islamic veil in public places.
France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2,000 women wear full veils.
Headscarves are allowed at French universities - but not schools President Nicolas Sarkozy has said veils oppress women and are "not welcome" in France.
Under the ban that took effect on 11 April 2011 no woman, French or foreign, will be able to leave their home in France with their face hidden behind a veil without running the risk of a fine.
The penalty for doing so is a 150-euro (£133, $217) fine and instruction in citizenship. Anyone found forcing a woman to cover her face risks a 30,000-euro fine.
Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside of France - say it is a violation of individual liberties.
A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004, and received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.
BELGIUM
The lower house of Belgium's parliament has passed a bill to ban clothing that hides a person's identity in public places such as parks, buildings and on the street.
The bill still needs approval in the Senate. It has broad cross-party support, though the Greens oppose it.
Although the legislation does not specifically refer to full-face Islamic veils, it would outlaw the use of garments such as the niqab and the burka.
Currently, the burka is banned in several districts under old local laws originally designed to stop people masking their faces completely at carnival time.
In Antwerp, for example, police can now reprimand, or even imprison, offenders. They say the regulation is all about public safety.
SPAIN
Though there are no plans for a national ban in Spain, the city of Barcelona has announced a ban on full Islamic face-veils in some public spaces such as municipal offices, public markets and libraries.
At least two smaller towns in Catalonia, the north-eastern region that includes Barcelona, have also imposed bans.
Barcelona's city council said the ban there targeted any head-wear that impeded identification, including motorbike helmets and balaclavas, rather than religious belief.
It resisted calls from the conservative Popular Party (PP) to extend the ban to all public spaces, including the street. The PP also wants the ban to be adopted throughout Spain.
BRITAIN
There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK, but schools are allowed to forge their own dress code after a 2007 directive which followed several high-profile court cases.
Former Schools Secretary Ed Balls said in January 2010 it was "not British" to tell people what to wear in the street after the UK Independence Party called for all face-covering Muslim veils to be banned.
In 2009 UKIP came second in the European elections in Britain, winning 13 seats in Brussels. Their lead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was idotic then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
And it's idiotic now.
Not to mention imma take serious *issue* if they keep going with that cause it'll technically mean outlawing my yellow sash/scarf, if they're gonna go so far as to piecemeal ban middle eastern cultural influences...
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.
...I can always just stay indoors...
I was on vacation in Barcelona a couple of years back, in the square of the old Jewish Quarter, when a man bicycled past wearing nothing except a good tan. It was apparent he was not Jewish. There were probably at least a hundred folk there, and the only reaction he got was some giggles from a group of teenage girls.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kinda bizarre that there's tolerance for some forms of self-expression, and not others. Would the woman from Switzerland that Magons mentions who is discomfited by over people wearing headscarves be similarly bothered by public nudity?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The purpose of sumptuary laws were different, they were there to force people to dress within their class, once the price of fabric had fallen to where quantity of fabric alone was not an economic determinant. Eventually, they became unnecessary once a fashion industry had successfully launched a new economic model, but since the days of designer knockoffs I don't know, though I suspect today's ruling classes would prefer to blend in. Notice that everyone in power everywhere in the world where the same identical outfit. It's not fashionable, or comfortable, and has no significance except that it was stylish among a certain set in a a certain time when the change occurred.
The purpose here is to outlaw the practice of Islam, to not delete it entirely, but to reduce it to a nominal self identification like Judaism or most of european christianity. The result, in the eyes of TPTB, would be that one group would carry a star of david, one a cross, and one a crescent, and that the three would all ultimately read a heavily updated and edited religious text that would ready them with a set of beliefs that would prepare them to support the ideas of their rulers and make themselves subservient.
So, I guess you could say the purpose was the opposite.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.
...I can always just stay indoors...
I was on vacation in Barcelona a couple of years back, in the square of the old Jewish Quarter, when a man bicycled past wearing nothing except a good tan. It was apparent he was not Jewish. There were probably at least a hundred folk there, and the only reaction he got was some giggles from a group of teenage girls.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Geezer,
Not everyone carries "the curse"
Quote:
From Urban Dictionary:
The directional inverse correlation between the size of a jewish males bank account and the the size of his penis.
Well, he DID have reservations at Alain Ducasse... But when we got back to my place, I finally just faked it so I could go to sleep. He DEFINITELY had the curse of the sacred jewish inch.
Perhaps I was lucky to be born poor. All that scottish and Irish blood.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's actually a THING?
Everyone is within like percents of each other size wise, outliers are somewhat rare.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
[BGeezer,
Not everyone carries "the curse"
True, but it wasn't that. I was thinking along the lines that an obvious foreskin would usually indicate that one wasn't of the Jewish persuasion. I mean, the guy rode right by me, and it was hard to miss.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.
I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.
No, Americans don't hate the French. Some silly Americans might, but there are plenty of us that don't follow that stereo type. Some of us actually recognize that "different" doesn't mean "bad" as well. Further, some of us know that it's silly to have an opinion about another's culture since we're so far removed. We're not as fun on forums though.
I do find it ironic and very amusing...the French would say they are standing up for equality and the rights of Women to dress as free citizens without covering their faces and plenty have praised them for taking the stand. And others see it and say not being able to wear the veil is robbing them of their freedom - that is funny. No wonder we're always fighting.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
True, but it wasn't that. I was thinking along the lines that an obvious foreskin would usually indicate that one wasn't of the Jewish persuasion. I mean, the guy rode right by me, and it was hard to miss.
Oh, I keep forgetting, the jewish slave marking. Most american males are so disabled, taking about 1/2 the sex nerve endings with it. It does decrease the urge, phantom pain, barbaric little slave marking. But you're right, not jewish europeans don't have it done.
The point in the ancient mideast was to stop the slaves from screwing the nobility. It would be impossible to hide your mutilation. Originally they all did it to both genders but now it's muslims doing it to girls and jews doing it to boys.
The bicyclist thing might be related to the story here last year. The Satmar Rabbinical council was in a huff over hipster bicyclists in short shorts and spandex riding through the bike lane, and so they went out and painted over the bike lane. The hipsters went in and painted the bike lane back in, and the Satmar "religious police" tried to arrest the bikers, but the actual police came in and told the Rabbis to back down.
It was in the new york times, so chances are it made it out there, I can see something like that as a statement. Probably because doing that in the muslim neighborhood wouldn't be the best idea.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.
I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.
No, Americans don't hate the French. Some silly Americans might, but there are plenty of us that don't follow that stereo type. Some of us actually recognize that "different" doesn't mean "bad" as well. Further, some of us know that it's silly to have an opinion about another's culture since we're so far removed. We're not as fun on forums though.
I do find it ironic and very amusing...the French would say they are standing up for equality and the rights of Women to dress as free citizens without covering their faces and plenty have praised them for taking the stand. And others see it and say not being able to wear the veil is robbing them of their freedom - that is funny. No wonder we're always fighting.
I suppose if you replace veil with bikini top than that makes sort of common sense. Women at the beach, some would like not to wear a bikini top, but some wouldn't. In France they don't have to, but here they do, so we're less free. but in France they're not forbidden from wearing a bikini top at the beach, which would be the equivalent of this law.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's actually a THING?
Everyone is within like percents of each other size wise, outliers are somewhat rare.
It's true, variations on average are very small, so to speak. The infamous black cock is actually 1/2 an inch longer than the average white cock, it's like 6.5 to 6.0 or something, and asians like 5.5 I think. The records are like 12.0 and 1.5, so there's a lot of individual variation. It's a patrilineal Y-chromosome thing, so it's a father's father thing, etc,. so for me, scottish, but I haven't checked the whole population, I just know that we scotts have a reputation. I think the irish and australians do too. Probably a myth. I've known two men who constantly worried about the bedroom laughter situation, one was jewish, which is where I learned about the curse. I don't know its origin, possibly mideastern?
I know that apes have about 2", so different human lines have all evolved longer. To get into the sticky gooey, I recently read there was a reason for it, other than winning over the ladies, which was gang bangs. Sperm swims about an inch an hour, so Mr. Sloppy Seconds only has a chance if he has a size advantage. I'm dubious myself because I think that he would be pushing the earlier sperm up. Either way, gang bangs are pretty anti-evolution.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Might depend on hitting the G-spot and/or A-spot, if they're real. I've heard that satisfaction on both sides helps with the fertility making because of certain muscular contractions, involving the cervix among other things.
But the spots (again, if real) are also non-essential to the process. Sufficient stimulation without anything fancy is supposedly enough on its own.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right, they are real, there are nerve clusters, it's actually vestigial in the human female the way nipples are on a human male, it's a pumping mechanism, and can be used to create a female ejaculation, it would just carry no sperm.
Size undoubtedly affects the pleasure, to a point, I've actually heard women complain of the pain from those with "frankencock" but, yes there's some evolutionary advantage here. The numbers I posted were "unaltered" sizes. Yes, surgical alterations are something that men do, damaging their virility in the process. One procedure is to cut the tendons that secure the male organ to the pelvic bone, which adds about 3" and allows the thing to break during sex. (Darwin award) the other is an insert which can be a varying number of inches, and adds to size while reducing blood flow, causing impotence, (darwin award #2) But when you see people advertising their largess in such a manner, one of more of these is what they've done. If a woman really wants a larger one, she could buy it out of plastic.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? We've gone from France's intrusion into what should be a civil right to sumptuary law to the evolutionary benefits of cock size?
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If a woman really wants a larger one, she could buy it out of plastic.
Really?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gemstones!
Distractability is the major component in avoiding brainwashing - they can't keep our attention long enough to force the viewpoints down our throats.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suggested to some of my contacts over there that if they're gonna wear a veil/headscarf or whatever, they pin a plainly visible yellow star on their outfit as a reminder to the fucking french where shit like that LEADS.
We'll see if any of em have the guts to do it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CAT-HERDING, Wheee!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon's, I don't hate the French by any means, I only pick on them here because of this law. If any country had a law like this I'd say the same thing about them too. Its a good thing you aren't a Muslim who chooses to wear a headscarf, you can go ahead and live in France if you like, though the EU is very picky about letting non-EU residents move there longterm, so you might be able to stay for a while but not for a long while. Now, if you have some very special skill that is lacking in the EU population then you have a better chance of being allowed to stay. Anyways, I think you're the only person who is okay with this in principle, if you actually are okay with this. I know that I have no right to go and bother people and insist they change their law, that isn't my place. But this is a forum and I have every right to say what I think here. As do you, as we both proved by writing our posts.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Size ain't everything, matter of fact it can occasionally be quite inconvenient. I mean, I guess it's a confidence booster, but then it also mandates wearing briefs or boxer briefs if you are going to wear your shirt tucked in. In the bedroom it requires patience and endurance and a lot of patience, as in I hope you are willing to spend like a damn hour on foreplay so you don't hurt her. And after you do everything her way she'll still complain about being sore, though she'll smile more about it.
As with any from or art, what separates the masters from the amateurs is not the size of their tools, but their attention to detail.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This law is crazy. I'd rather see all the effort going into making guys turn their hats forward again. I wonder if the world would be a better place if Germany had gotten to keep France. Merkel would be in charge. Me likes that
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Size ain't everything, matter of fact it can occasionally be quite inconvenient. I mean, I guess it's a confidence booster, but then it also mandates wearing briefs or boxer briefs if you are going to wear your shirt tucked in. In the bedroom it requires patience and endurance and a lot of patience, as in I hope you are willing to spend like a damn hour on foreplay so you don't hurt her. And after you do everything her way she'll still complain about being sore, though she'll smile more about it.
As with any from or art, what separates the masters from the amateurs is not the size of their tools, but their attention to detail.
LOL, my god man what else would you ever wear besides boxer-briefs or boxers? Holy grapes.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.
It's not really the same, it's not always painful, though, admittedly, sometimes it is, for a guy, and when it is, you can't exactly make an adjustment in public, the way a girl could with her boobs.
Girls don't always need bras though. They could wear a push-up or a corset. Or just something really tight.
She might defy gravity
But if not, there are other solutions
I don't know who this girl is, but I found this pic while searching.
Felt obliged to share.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
And "some" wonder why I have an issue with equality being more important than FREEDOM.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really don't think this is a case of racism, more a case of "manners". I speak for myself when I say I find it incredibly rude when a person is speaking to me and not lookng me in the eye. I am uncomfortable when I cannot see somebody's face when engaged in discourse.
Motorcyclists in my workplace are asked to remove their helmet/visor when dealing with deliveries.(security matter) Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
Although I don't wish to legislate against this, because I do agree that it opens a very squirmy can of worms, I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Although I completely understand the religious significance of the face veil, I absolutely despise talking to a human pillarbox, not because I have racist views, but because I have cultural expectations that I demand are respected.
If I walk into a muslim house(as I have done many times) I would expect to remove my shoes and would have no complaint about it. I would not allow the wearing of a face veil in my house and admittance would be refused if not complied with.
This is RESPECT for the culture you are entering,NOT a racist attitude.To ask somebody to remove their veil when conversing with me is my absolute right and to refuse that courtesy will result in and end to any further discourse.
Is that such a big deal???????
Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
...? I wear hoods a lot, especially in winter time around here, sometimes as something to hide my crippling anxiety and insecurities under, and I've never been hassled in any store I've been in. Never even been bothered by police on the street.
I even went to see my brother in England and was wearing my hood in stores, nothing.
Also, anxiety and other disorders, including autism, can sometimes manifest in people not looking other people in the eye. You hold that against them? You'd refuse them your acquaintance, your business?
Quote:
I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Must be easy to say that if you're in the MAJORITY. Culture is what someone makes it, what they make around them, who they interact with. Saying that there's one nation and one culture is silly and ethnocentric.
So no, I won't call the French law racist, and I won't call it creedist, but I *WILL* call it ethnocentric, and I WILL call it intolerant.
And I'll also accuse that kinda stuff for one-world no individuality anti-culture NONSENSE. Much easier to control everyone and feed them the same propaganda when they all think, act, and dress alike, see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh for fuck's sake, why do you have to come up with the OBVIOUS exceptions to the rule just to make a bloody point. Pedantic doesn't necessarily mean intelligent, you know. The points you make on the matter don't even need responding to. That's like saying dogs aren't allowed in a shop. But you wouldn't tell a blind man to fuck off would you? Honestly, pathetic response>
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
...? I wear hoods a lot, especially in winter time around here, sometimes as something to hide my crippling anxiety and insecurities under, and I've never been hassled in any store I've been in. Never even been bothered by police on the street.
I even went to see my brother in England and was wearing my hood in stores, nothing.
Also, anxiety and other disorders, including autism, can sometimes manifest in people not looking other people in the eye. You hold that against them? You'd refuse them your acquaintance, your business?Quote:
I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Must be easy to say that if you're in the MAJORITY. Culture is what someone makes it, what they make around them, who they interact with. Saying that there's one nation and one culture is silly and ethnocentric.
So no, I won't call the French law racist, and I won't call it creedist, but I *WILL* call it ethnocentric, and I WILL call it intolerant.
And I'll also accuse that kinda stuff for one-world no individuality anti-culture NONSENSE. Much easier to control everyone and feed them the same propaganda when they all think, act, and dress alike, see.
Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really don't see how what I said was pedantic. Both in regards to the definition of pedantic as unimportant details, formalities, or scholastics, and in regards to how you're using it, as "obvious exceptions."
You didn't say any exceptions, did you expect me to mind read them?
But you wanted me to have a point. So here's some points.
1) While the law bans all face concealing headgear in public for the purpose of identification as a "security measure," it may be presumed that of those few non-Muslims who wear such headgear, which include winter-wear baclavas, do not wear them ALL THE TIME. On the other hand, it can be presumed that Muslim women wearing such headgear wear it 100% of the time in public.
The law primarily targets Muslims.
2) The Muslims in question very likely believe that the veils are symbolic of their modesty, and may also believe that removal of their veil exposes them to danger. They likely believe their veils are protective, and being unable to wear their veils is a humiliation akin to being required by law to walk around in public in a speedo.
The law, either intentionally or not, results in emotional damage to the main targets of the law, including humiliation.
3) When the law goes into place, it is expected it will effect 2,000 women. The response to the ban in France? Peaceful protests! In that time, one single person was attacked, by members of her community. While I must disapprove of that one single attack, I think this is indicative of just how much a threat "terrorism" is from the individuals in question.
As such, the law acts on preconceived notions of Muslims as violent more than it does on the reality of the situation in France, and uses "security" as a justification for their harrassment.
So, I was willing to give the French the benefit of the doubt, that they might simply just not be AWARE of the ramifications of forcing their values on a target demographic. Or maybe they don't care, and this is just some means to an end that is entirely irrelevant to the who or the what.
But if not, it starts to come across as a little prejudiced and bigoted, assuming all these Muslim women are a potential terrorist threat, hey? And I don't know about you, but humiliating someone just because they're an acceptable target because of said prejudices of the majority seems a little mean-spirited.
And that's not even getting into how laws about having your face uncovered at all times just so you can be identified on security camera must ALWAYS have benevolent intentions, right? Because no one is ever wrongfully accused, or framed, or a political dissenter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Peacekeeper, I guess we can't talk because I can't look people in the eyes, I don't even really understand the concept really, I mean I can look at people but the part about eye contact is beyond my capacities for conceptualization. But I can try. :))
I know it looks like we're picking on you but I don't think we are ... are we? Well I can assure you that I'm not picking on ya, I thought my post might make ya laugh because I'm one of those exceptions. I just thought I'd post it for giggles. :)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*shrug*, I don't look at folk often when talkin to em neither - honestly I prefer remote communication in part for that reason, I have a reflexive hostility towards other human beings in person and not lookin directly at em avoids provoking that - not to mention when fixing something for someone, I've usually got both eyes and hands on the job, so they're talkin to the back of my head anyways, and that's on a small project, unlike my nasty lawyers beat up cadillac... I swear that thing is soon to fall apart right out from under him, that's the third damn time I hadda replace that water pump and I am pretty sure he was lying to me about not running it into the red and the seals are blown too, dumbass...
But I digress - anyhows, not everyone shares YOUR concept of morality, or proper manners, why would you expect them to ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, not everybody shares my sense of manners and morality, but it is evident that the majority of the french population DO. And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?
Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
I really don't think this is a case of racism, more a case of "manners". I speak for myself when I say I find it incredibly rude when a person is speaking to me and not lookng me in the eye. I am uncomfortable when I cannot see somebody's face when engaged in discourse.
Motorcyclists in my workplace are asked to remove their helmet/visor when dealing with deliveries.(security matter) Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
Although I don't wish to legislate against this, because I do agree that it opens a very squirmy can of worms, I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Although I completely understand the religious significance of the face veil, I absolutely despise talking to a human pillarbox, not because I have racist views, but because I have cultural expectations that I demand are respected.
If I walk into a muslim house(as I have done many times) I would expect to remove my shoes and would have no complaint about it. I would not allow the wearing of a face veil in my house and admittance would be refused if not complied with.
This is RESPECT for the culture you are entering,NOT a racist attitude.To ask somebody to remove their veil when conversing with me is my absolute right and to refuse that courtesy will result in and end to any further discourse.
Is that such a big deal???????
Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!
thanks peacekeeper, i was going post something similar, but couldn't be arsed. I don't agree with laws prohibiting dress of any kind, but I get why having people who come to your country and insist on such an archaic and controversial dress as something which covers a womans face, and then wonder why the locals get pissed off.
My tolerance for religious worship finds itself severely tested with such crap.
If I go to Morrocco, I follow local laws, if I go to Malaysia, I do the same. I extend that courtesy to my host country and citizens...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, not everybody shares my sense of manners and morality, but it is evident that the majority of the french population DO. And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?
No, they don't. Not unless they're hurting someone, and there's already crimes to cover that. The point of a Republic/parliament is that it has majority and minority parties, and is SUPPOSED to be constructed so as not to run roughshod over a minority population. The point is fair government, where the rights of the minority are protected by accordance, agreement, or law. Unfortunately, these governments never seem to live up to that promise, but that doesn't mean that the IDEAL, of voice from all concerned citizens in policy affecting their lives, should be abandoned.
Furthermore, you can't create PRE-CRIMES, where someone MIGHT do something because they're a member of a certain population. No crime has yet been committed, in what manner do you enforce it? This is basically the gist of the anti-terrorism part of the law in question. It's a bad idea, simply because allowing for pre-crime sets a precedence to which other populations, even potentially the majority population can be held.
Keep the fines if someone is forcing the women to wear the Burqas and they don't want to. Lose everything else.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, and I stress, I am against legislation that prohibits a certain dress code. I think that is wrong.What I object to is the fact that the minority refuses to respect the views of the majority. All you hear about, wherever you go in the world is guidelines of behaviour that I am expected to follow in order not to upset the local population.
But I am still expected to turn a blind eye when a minority in my country does not appreciate what pisses ME off.
I am SICK of having to pander to the wishes of a few, when the few have no concept of what offends ME, and I have to say, MOST of us who are too frightened to voice their opinion, in case they are labelled with some inappropriate monicker.
Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, how often do you encounter it and it's a problem for you? I give you credit for being against laws restricting clothing, but why does it matter what the minority does, and what the majority thinks?
Where I live, there's a every sizable Latino population, and yes, most of them are Mexican. They speak Spanish, a lot, and I know very little Spanish. They often keep speaking Spanish while I'm near them, and sometimes it is difficult for me to communicate with Spanish speakers, and vice-versa.
But I don't throw up my hands and say, "oh my gosh, you Mexicans, by not conforming to the majority, you make it so much harder for everyone else. Stop being so Mexican!"
Similarly, I would never go up to either a Muslim girl in a hijab or a woman in a barqa, and say "oh my gosh, you could have bombs under there, and not seeing your face makes it hard for me to communicate with you. Stop being so Muslim!"
I mean, how is it exactly that you're having to pander to them? You've said nothing so far to indicate to me that you have had to pander - perhaps that you've had to tolerate some people's differences, maybe, but then everyone has to do that whenever we socially interact with someone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?
No.
To be even more blunt, Fuck You.
I mean that in a general, rather than personal sense, since everywhere I turn, every single day, I have a culture and society that is radically divergent from my own beliefs on those things foisted upon me without so much as asking, often with the force of law behind it, even when that law is in blatant defiance of the very documents and principles this country was founded on.
*I* am SICK of having to pander to the wishes of the many, bow to superior force an accept as "normal" things I consider wrong, inhumane or even downright evil - and I feel that calling people intolerant is entirely appropriate when they are, in fact I do feel that the attitude I am seeing here reeks of it, and weasel-wording it to avoid admission of what it really is just further convinces me folk feel it's wrong even in their own mind, but as always when societys majority is down with that wrong, people feel they can get way with it, as long as they are discreet and don't cop to it obviously.
And it sickens me that they're usually right about that.
For all that we pretend otherwise there's a damned lot of prejudice and intolerance in our societies, and paying lip service to tolerance while ones actions indicate the opposite is a pretty obvious form of hypocrisy and sets my teeth on edge cause by *MY* lights, anyone who seeks to deprive someone else of their rights, freedoms or personhood should instantly and immediately lose all respect for their own, on the spot.
Look, if a girl wants to wear the damn thing, if she feels uncomfortable and exposed without it, who are YOU to demand such a thing, consider this for our female posters - how would YOU feel if some nimrod made it mandatory for you to expose your breasts in public ?
Cause that *IS* how some of these girls feel about it, never you doubt it - for a fact most folk have NO understanding of any culture but their own.
Now if she don't wanna wear it, and this is being shoved upon her unwanted, then it's not a matter of CULTURE to step in and make an issue of it, it's a matter of being a human being - and that stands even if it's WITHIN a culture and country where forcing that upon them is the norm.
In short, using the law to force women to conform to YOUR moral standards, against their will - is no fucking different than the goddamn Taliban doing so, no matter how much you dress it up and weasel word it - once you cut to the root of it, you're STILL not respecting their personhood.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This isn't about the "majority vs the minority".
Thats a smokescreen.
Its an issue of privacy. Those in power don't LIKE not knowing who you are.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon: These laws weren't in place generally until long after the population was established. Rather ridiculous to expect people to retroactively conform to laws that didn't exist yet.
Speaking of archaic dress, do you have an issue with catholic nuns having to wear a head dress and their modesty robes? How's about Mormons don't let non-Mormons enter some parts of their temples, and they want everyone wearing special underwear both mean and women.
And, if you went to Afghanistan, would you wear the burqa?
Wulf: Agreed and well said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Wulf: Agreed and well said."
Its kind of scary when people start to agree with me, and see the point I'm driving at.
But... you really can't stop the signal.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is waaaay too long to catch up on, so I'll just sayQuote:
For the same reason Muslim mosques are having such a hard time in America...fear, in my opinion. Fear which has been stoked by some to achieve their goals, and which has been adopted by far too many people.
But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?
And I "hate" the French, which I'm allowed to do; I'm half pure-French immigrant. So there. (Not seriously, I don't "hate" any group, but I do know I'm prejudiced against them...)
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The French...
You know why Americans find them distasteful?
In WW2 they bent over for the Germans.
And as National Socialists are known to do (coughliberalprogressivedemocratscoughcough)...they proceeded to take over the country and make it hell.
Then when we saved their frog-eating asses... they STILL thought they could turn their arrogant noses up at us.
To this day, those smelly bastards STILL think they are more "cultured" than us.
LOL Like most spoiled, arrogant fools, they piss on those who ALLOW them to be the arrogant fools they are.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Peacekeeper, I, on a personal and selfish level, understand what you mean about how when we go places we have to try and respect them, but no one makes people respect how we live when they come here. I'm a selfish person and I can admit it and I secretly understand where you're coming from on some level as said. But I would never persue it beyond saying "I know what you mean, every once in a while I feel that way too", I would never insist on legislation that people need to conform in what they wear or such. Should people learn English if they come here to live? Yes. Should be able to speak their own language with each other in public and at home? Yes.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Look, if a girl wants to wear the damn thing, if she feels uncomfortable and exposed without it, who are YOU to demand such a thing, consider this for our female posters - how would YOU feel if some nimrod made it mandatory for you to expose your breasts in public ?
Cause that *IS* how some of these girls feel about it, never you doubt it - for a fact most folk have NO understanding of any culture but their own.
Now if she don't wanna wear it, and this is being shoved upon her unwanted, then it's not a matter of CULTURE to step in and make an issue of it, it's a matter of being a human being - and that stands even if it's WITHIN a culture and country where forcing that upon them is the norm.
well I think its pretty hard for the CULTURE to step up when it suits the powerful in that culture to subjegate the less powerful. That's kind of the point of the burqa and face veil. They pose huge restrictions on women, even what they can see of the world around them. Now if you are talking about a culture in a particular country - that is their culture, and I guess their decision to make regarding how they go about things. Personally, I still want to have a voice around cultural issues like female circumcison and honour killings and the like, and screw the culture frankly. But wearing full covering is not the culture of France and europe and I can see why it pisses them off.
Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country. Isn't it kind of up the French/Europeans to decide what kind of society they have? Why is commenting on this law okay, but criticising a cultural law that insists on women covering themselves in entirity okay. and don't tell me its an individuals choice, coz i'm pretty sure that individual women DON'T get a choice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But that is the point, you see.
In one place, by law, they MUST.
In another, by law, they must NOT.
So where in there, at all, is any place for freedom ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
For the same reason Muslim mosques are having such a hard time in America...
Not quite. A few mosques are having a hard time in a few places in the U.S. Most aren't having any problem at all. Certainly not around where I live in Northern Virginia.
This seems to be an example of a standard American trope. If something a particular individual doesn't like happens anywhere within the country, it suddenly (to them) becomes endemic in the entire country.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
well I think its pretty hard for the CULTURE to step up when it suits the powerful in that culture to subjugate the less powerful.
Pretty sure there aren't many cultures that DON'T do that. And it's unacceptable in any culture its found in... But it doesn't mean that all members of that culture are guilty of it, nor does it mean that there aren't case by case specifics, exceptions, and so on. Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.
Your well meaning intentions, which they are, may also result in people being unable to practice something they believe, including women that you're trying to protect, educate, elevate, and so on. Perhaps this is important to them? Perhaps because of their upbringing, they don't see what you see, or think it's a big deal.
Quote:
Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country.
It's politics. Libertarians talk about politics all the time, in both their country and others. Like, hey, Qaddafi has a POLICY of killing the bejeesus out of his own people.
Are we not supposed to comment on world affairs because of our political ideologies? That would be pretty useful to any of our political opponents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Saying all this, I find it somewhat ironic that libertarians would comment on a law in another country. Isn't it kind of up the French/Europeans to decide what kind of society they have? Why is commenting on this law okay, but criticising a cultural law that insists on women covering themselves in entirity okay. and don't tell me its an individuals choice, coz i'm pretty sure that individual women DON'T get a choice."
Hello,
Being a Libertarian entails absolute freedom to comment on absolute freedom, absolutely. ;-)
If you think Libertarians are any happier about laws that require this clothing to be worn, then I suspect you haven't been paying attention.
I have trouble respecting any law that tells you what you can and cannot wear. Anyone who would put a gun to someone's head in order to control their fashion seems crazy to me. In any country.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pretty sure there aren't many cultures that DON'T do that. And it's unacceptable in any culture its found in... But it doesn't mean that all members of that culture are guilty of it, nor does it mean that there aren't case by case specifics, exceptions, and so on. Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.
Yeah, haven't seen much evidence of that. Sorry Byte. Of course all cultures contain power imbalances, that wasn't my point. I was responding to Frem's argument that 'it's up to the culture in question to rectify itself'. Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.
I did say I was playing devils advocate here, because I don't personally think a ban on clothing is the way to go. I'm arguing that the stance taken is necessarily racist, and I have a degree of sympathy for the Europeans in this regard. Religious tolerance isn't part of MY ideology. Personally, I'm sick of being tolerant of religions when they themselves are intolerant. When do you allow something to happen just because it happens in the name of religion or someones culture. Do you allow families to perform clitorectomies on their daughters? Do you allow children to be wed to old men? Do you allow honour killings? They are all part of people's religion/culture and yet we wouldn't allow those things.
If a man moved in down the road from me and refuse to let his wife or daughters show their face to anyone. If he made them wear paper bags on their head down the street and to school, and when challenged he would say 'oh it is their choice to wear the paper bag' would I have to tolerate it? I might not expect some form of legal intervention - actially I'd probably would for the children, but why should something that subjegates another be okay just because someones shitty god has ordered them to do it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"and when challenged he would say"
Hello,
I'd say you'd be challenging/asking the wrong person.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"and when challenged he would say"
Hello,
I'd say you'd be challenging/asking the wrong person.
well when asked, the women would say they are happy with it. Because that's what people do when they are being subjegated, they don't have the power to say 'no'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.
Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.
Then you empower them, or help do so.
Cause sticking the gun barrel of law in their face and giving them orders is no better thing - all THAT does is change which oppressor is giving the orders, and is not a net benefit.
In order to give them the freedom to not wear the veil/burkha, we ALSO, absolutely MUST, give them the freedom to do so - for if there is no choice, it's not a matter of empowering them to decide, but rather making their decisions for them, the very act these supposed laws are set against, and I firmly believe the folks who wrote em are damn well aware of it, and that the intent behind them is in fact oppressive, on purpose.
As usual, most of the folk talkin about freedom and choice - they don't REALLY want to cut the chains of oppression, all they wanna do is change the hand holding them to their own.
This isn't encouraging them to stand up, it simply encouraging them to bow down to someone else, and at the end of the day, that's ALL it is.
-Frem
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/23/their-empty-talk-of-liberat
ing-afghan-women.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.
Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.
--Anthony
well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.
Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.
--Anthony
well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.
Hello,
I can share your strong emotional distaste for these religious practices and mistreatment of women, but you are straying in your topic and argument.
You have gone from describing people who claim to enjoy a particular dress code to people who are dismayed at their own castration.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not easy to rectify a power imbalance from within if you are the one without power, was all my point.
My understanding is when a prominent Australian imam said something along the lines of "women would not be raped if they were covered," using a metaphor of cats around meat, his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.
To me, it really sounds this is more of an issue of assholes being in every group. I was able to find some comments from non-Muslim western viewers in response to a young girl being raped then stoned for adultery in Budapest that it was the GIRL'S fault, and that making the girl out to be the victim is unfair to her rapists.
What I was saying before is simple logic. A population requires a fairly even spread of both men and women to reproduce. Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population. Stone women for false accusations of adultery (rape) and you reduce the reproductive potential of that pool. Perform extreme clitorectomies where the vaginal canal is tightened, partially covered or even covered over and requiring cutting into for intercourse reduces fertility. And above, even though the conversation was very off-topic, I suggested the possibility that women being unable to achieve orgasm reduces fertility. Very young girls have a higher chance of dying in childbirth.
The population in question must figure out that they are hamstringing themselves, or they will decline in importance and prominence, and might even die out completely. Islam is in this position, and little over 100 years ago, most of the western world was in the same situation.
Quote:
Do you allow families to perform clitorectomies on their daughters? Do you allow children to be wed to old men? Do you allow honour killings?
Of course not, but for several of those, there's ALREADY laws against these things. Forcing someone into an unwilling sexual relationship is rape. Honour killings are a form of murder. Clitorectomies have no laws against it, but I'd be willing to say in that case that if it is forced, it is a violation of choice and body. In any case, if your concern is clitorectomies, but you're focusing your laws on burqas, that seems to me to be missing the point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, so I’m prejudiced against the French, but certainly not to the degree Wulf is---but then Wulf’s prejudices seem to all be mostly extreme. I don’t think for one minute it’s about WWII, tho’ that prejudice certainly still exists to a degree. It’s more because of the stereotype of what French people ARE---and stereotypes exist because there is a certain amount of truth to them. Like the British being uptight, Americans being loud and overbearing, Italians being dirty, etc. On which subject, as an aside, we traveled by rail through Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. In the first three, there was little difference between the trails. When we got into Italy, the trains were noticeably dirtier, the stations MUCH dirtier, ALL the trains we took, even to Venice. It was quite noticeable. So now I have that prejudice, tho’ I try to be aware of it and not let it affect how I feel about individual people.Quote:
I disagree. I think we’re often not AWARE of how much people respect us when they visit America, but trust me, coming from almost anywhere, they respect a lot. When Americans travel to Europe, very FEW of them bother to learn any of the language, and even when they immigrate there, that’s rarely the case. Yes, we allow it in schools and even teach it there, but I think when it’s a problem, it’s more because of lack of inclusion in society---for which they are as much responsible as we are, unquestionably. We are a far more tolerant country than many others; if we were stricter, we’d have the kind of law we’re discussing in France, but I wouldn’t really WANT us to be.
no one makes people respect how we live when they come here
While we’re speaking of prejudices, how about the current fluffer-nutter about the ad with the woman laughing at her son having painted his toes pink? It’s insane to hear what people are saying with regard to that, while I’ll bet in France it wouldn’t even be noticed. Different cultures = different prejudices, and from what I saw, many (not most) Americans don’t show the people of the country they’re in much respect...certainly not compared to people who visit us. Living there is another matter, but the same is true even then for many.
Magons, I would disagree in one respect. Frem is right; many (especially older) Muslim women WOULD feel naked and even violated without their veils. Literally HUNDREDS of years of their culture have made that the norm for them. To break that norm sometimes takes education and exposure to the world, but sometimes it also takes a few generations. In fact, from what I’ve experienced, Muslim women in America DO have the choice, and the vast majority of them choose not to wear veils. But from what experienced in Afghanistan, there are definitely women who choose to wear a chadri or some form of veil.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I didn’t say “most” mosques or even “many” mosques, but the fact remains that where previously there wasn’t even thought given to mosques being built in a community, in current times it IS an issue in some places.Quote:
Certainly, that’s kind of what I was saying, that if the person gets attention and the mood of the country is right, it is easy to MAKE that prejudice be adopted by more people, which is then highlighted on the media or something and spreads to more and more of the country. In that respect they’re not wrong (especially as that kind of person usually “cleaves to their own” and their attitudes get reinforced).
If something a particular individual doesn't like happens anywhere within the country, it suddenly (to them) becomes endemic in the entire countryQuote:
Yup, that’s what I think and what I kind of said.
Or that said culture should be dissolved because it has differences, or even flaws, relative to the evolution of other cultures in the world. All cultures in my estimation will become more tolerant and more supportive of all it's members EVENTUALLY, simply because it is in the best interest of the culture to do so. And I think it's more likely to stick and be sincere if the culture ITSELF decides to take that turning point.
Magons, I’ll say one thing about “Personally, I'm sick of being tolerant of religions when they themselves are intolerant.” It’s not the RELIGIONS which are intolerant, it’s how man defines them, yes? All religions that I know of preach tolerance, but once humans take over the implementation of the religion (or even, in some cases, the writings by human which are supposedly the word of a god), that goes out the window. I blame those within the religion with the power to manipulate the religion into what they want...usually for more power.
And I say again, in some cases, yes, the woman DOES choose to follow her culture, even when to us some of it (or all of it) can be considered subjugation. Some are also devout, and it would feel blasphemous to them to abandon the rituals of their religion. Yes, some women actually DO feel that way, and forcing OUR culture onto them (except where it breaks our laws or hurts someone) is as wrong to me as the (ridiculous) concept of Sharia law taking over in America. It’s not always a matter of being powerless to say no. There’s also the fact that any woman in America who CHOOSES to do so needn’t follow the laws of their religion or culture, with the obvious difficulty that they’d often lose those closest to them if they do.
Caveat: I am in NO way condoning any of the subjugating rituals which harm people, women, children OR men, so please don’t say I am. I find some practices within different religions absolutely abhorrent, I’m just pointing out the other side.Quote:
Huzzah Frem! What I’ve been trying to say, but much more succinctly, as always.
In order to give them the freedom to not wear the veil/burkha, we ALSO, absolutely MUST, give them the freedom to do so - for if there is no choice, it's not a matter of empowering them to decide, but rather making their decisions for them
I really hate to say it, Riona, but yes, there are even who would feel violated if they were forced NOT to have a clitorectomy. Luckily they are dying out, but they still exist. We shouldn’t be forcing them NOT to, which of course is a difficulty because it’s done to young girls, who perhaps have not imagined anything different or been exposed to the possibilities.
And I do agree with Anthony, this has gone from a small “cultural norm” to some very drastic examples.Quote:
Still I guess as mentioned, playing devil’s advocate, but I would add “some” before both Muslim and Muslim women.
his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.
As another aside (snark?):Quote:
Agreed, but when’s the last time you saw MEN being oppress
Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's an interesting question. Unwilling clitorectomies probably ARE some kind of assault. My guess would be a sexual assault, just like some woman mutilating a guy for cheating on her would be a sexual assault.
Clitorectomies themselves, if performed willingly, are probably a cosmetic surgery. There are some women I understand who want to have their hymen repaired so they can convince their newly-wed husbands they're a virgin, which would probably also fall under cosmetic surgery.
As for oppression of men, I've seen my share of abusive relationships with both genders in the power position. It happens. Society wise, things in America seem to be getting pretty close to equal, but it's hard to tell from the inside. All I know is that for every case I see that's oppression of women, I also see a case of oppression of men. It's just the oppression of women seems to be more extreme and repugnant.
Men are the highest incidence of rape, but that's by other men, and factors in the prison population. Male on female rape is quite a bit more common than female on male rape.
I'd have to look at sexual harassment in the workplace numbers. It's probably higher against women again, but it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Certain work environments are riskier than others, such as in the military.
But when we look at the mainstream examples, it all looks pretty equal. On television, men are shown to be uncultured and dumb-witted beasts with no control over their sexual appetites. This is as offensive as when women were shown the same way. But for women, there's still lingering subtext about educated women, women in power jobs, abilities of women, intelligence of women, desperation of women, and so on. Overt examples against women are generally shouted down now, which is good, but subtle ones persist, such as in advertising. Examples of oppression against men seem to rarely be shouted down, which in my estimation increases some of their weight in this comparison.
If we look at wages, women make slightly less then men, but then if you think about it MOST people aren't paid enough for their work, so big picture this looks more like everyone is oppressed than a sign of male oppression over women.
So I say pretty equal. Could still be better, it'd be nice if we didn't have underhanded messages about either gender, and if we could cut down on the rape and sexual harassment some more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kind of side-topical, but provided the deal goes through this'll make things interesting - a local security related biz just caved in, they were just a front to try to get a juicy contract from DepHomeSec/TSA and that fell through, causing the proprietor to flee town and creditors (one of them PO Box LLC companies, total fly by night stuff), and left a bunch of gear laying around, which I made a bid on, if any of those creditors cares to sell it to me.
Thing is, there's a whole crapload of camera-dvr widgets disguised as innocent objects in there, all of which can record to micro-SD card - I plan to have the instructions translated and ship the whole works to RAWA, playing along with our existing plan to make those Tali-tubby freaks suffer the indignity of having their asshattery exposed to the world, and as well instill a fear of the Burkha since you can hide all manner of shit under one of those, you see - the intent is to draw the notions of covered women and espionage/assassination (tho that's more an NFA thing) together in their minds in such a way that it challenges thier concepts, aided along by mockery from our male allies over the notion that they're so weak and pathetic they can't control themselves around exposed women, a questioning of their manhood as it were - which culturally is a bigger thing with Pashtun than it is with us.
Concept: "What, you are so spiritually weak you cannot gaze on the beauty Allah gives us without falling prey to evil, are you this pathetic ?
And then, and then, you blame HER for being a creature of Allahs grace, and force her to cover herself for YOUR sin, how dare you ?"
Coming from their own, in language, culture and belief, that's a damn strong incentive, and although it's not often discussed openly, not all members of RAWA lack a Y chromosone, you know.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, that's a good one. Although this makes me nervous that they then might start to try to force disrobe the women, and if any of the women are caught, oh my gosh, punishments. These women are very brave. I wish them all the luck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I said "men", meaning in general, because yes, I think we all know marriages, etc., where the man is the underdog. And I meant in reality, not on TV or so forth, places where generically women get shorter shrift just by being female, especially the work place, and sports, for example.
Frem: GOOD 'UN! Huzzah!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah, I don't think women in America getting the shorter shrift more than men is that much reality anymore, which is why I included analysis of rape, sexual harassment, and wages.
Oppression is oppression, either comparing relationships or even just on the level of how the gender is depicted by the mainstream. Like I said, when women were the uneducated, child-like, and sex-starved gender, it created stereotypes that perpetuated across society in reality. Are we prepared to say the same thing hasn't or couldn't happen to men? So, oppression. Both genders get oppressed. I would not like to see either gender start to become MORE oppressed, which makes me feel like we might be just about on a balance point, which implies we're getting pretty close to some form of equality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Brave don't begin to describe it, I mean, I got guts, sure - but it's a far different thing to act knowing you may suffer, than to stay your hand when everything within you cries out to bring havoc upon them cause you KNOW it's counterproductive... man that's harsh - if you ever saw Pans Labyrinth you can see that kind of courage in Mercedes, but when she did act, she made it count.
They got folks guarding their schools, who's whole job is to intercept potential bombers and try to set the bomb off AWAY from the place, or in the case of the all-too-common drone attacks, run like hell and try to draw its fire, knowing they will die.
(All too often our fuckin fundamentalist "friends" feed our idiot military the locations of those schools as targets, and we just gobble it up with a smile cause our idea of intelligence these days is beating phony confessions out of kidnapped cab drivers, grrrr)
The NFA girls (who are NOT affiliated with RAWA) take it a step beyond that, cause they're usually packing at the very least a hand grenade with a detcap instead of a fuse (goes off instantly, instead of timed) and if caught out they just go kaboom.
Every time we side with the damn fundamentalists on anything, all we do is defeat our own purpose.
Aliya (the minimart owners wife, who is Pashtun) says we oughta send over whole combat units exclusively made of women - I can see her point cause like it or not, violence *IS* the usual way to make your point in Afghanistan, and having their asses repeatedly kicked by women damn well MIGHT encourage them to respect, out of a certain macho-cultural thing, provided enough of em survive to carry the tale.
But of course, that would require something other than hoo-rah, gobbling down our own infantile propaganda, and letting the fucking christian dominionists who want a new crusade run wild within our military... 
To do evil - is wrong.
To do evil badly - is unforgivable.
-Frem
Do Wrong, Right
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle956r32ys
Also:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PragmaticVillainy
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done for a subjugated victim who conveys enthusiasm about their situation.
Deciding no for them just makes you the subjugator instead.
--Anthony
well I'm sure the women who might otherwise have lost their clitorises might disagree with you there.
Hello,
I can share your strong emotional distaste for these religious practices and mistreatment of women, but you are straying in your topic and argument.
You have gone from describing people who claim to enjoy a particular dress code to people who are dismayed at their own castration.
--Anthony
Yes, sorry Anthony. It was quite late last night in my zone of the world, and I had a few glasses of Cab Sav, apols for not being particularly coherent.
The point I was badly trying to make was that assuming something is voluntary just because you have given an individual choice is kind of naive, particularly in cultures where individual preferences and rights are not given the same credence as the rights of the culture/family. You are really talking apples and oranges here. So my example was off topic, but to give an instance of a situtation where consent was given to horrific procedures, but it was still banned because it was horrific. It wasn't a particularly good example because those procedures are carried out on female children (often at the insistence of a mother). A better example might be suttee, where many, many women went voluntarily to their husbands funeral pyre to be burnt alive until the practice was banned. So I guess I am trying to use more extreme examples of where cultural expectations/power imbalances could lead to individuals being subjegated and abused, but seemingly with their consent. I hope I am being clearer now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE
My understanding is when a prominent Australian imam said something along the lines of "women would not be raped if they were covered," using a metaphor of cats around meat, his statement was in fact decried by Muslims, including Muslim women.
Of course, Byte. This really isn't about being Muslim, because Muslims are not a cohesive group in any sense. They have vast differences in culture and even in their interpretation of the Qu'ran. Plenty of people decried this idiot iman, including Muslim men and women, because there are plenty of progressive Muslims in this country.
There are women and men who are Muslim who do not agree with women being fully covered and who speak out against such activity. But they don't belong to the community who do it, and would have little or no impact on them. So it's not like you would see a covered woman who says "Yep, this is wrong, I hate it, but I have to do it because I'll be thrown out of my community if I don't'.
See my post above, we talk about the rights of individuals to choose, but not every culture gives those rights to the individual. They don't exist. Actually they don't exist in most cultures, except for us in the west. In most places in the world, family needs override the individual. So really they may have no choice.
Quote:
What I was saying before is simple logic. A population requires a fairly even spread of both men and women to reproduce. Oppress either one, and it's to the detriment of the population. Stone women for false accusations of adultery (rape) and you reduce the reproductive potential of that pool. Perform extreme clitorectomies where the vaginal canal is tightened, partially covered or even covered over and requiring cutting into for intercourse reduces fertility. And above, even though the conversation was very off-topic, I suggested the possibility that women being unable to achieve orgasm reduces fertility. Very young girls have a higher chance of dying in childbirth.
which is exactly what happens. but cultural practices are very hard to change, even if they are self defeating or not useful for the community. cultural practices become dogma and we see that with many, many religious laws. what started out 1000's of years ago as something practical ie 'let's keep our women covered because when we get raided by neighbouring tribes AGAIN, they won't be able to target our young, fertile women to kidnap' becomes enshrined in religious dogma. And every one has to tip toe around it, no matter how subjegating or stupid it is, because we have to respect people's religious beliefs or at least YOU do because you were founded by a bunch of religious fanatics. We on the other hand were founded by criminals, which is why we don't like authority ;}
Quote:
Of course not, but for several of those, there's ALREADY laws against these things. Forcing someone into an unwilling sexual relationship is rape. Honour killings are a form of murder. Clitorectomies have no laws against it, but I'd be willing to say in that case that if it is forced, it is a violation of choice and body. In any case, if your concern is clitorectomies, but you're focusing your laws on burqas, that seems to me to be missing the point.
yes, see above. got a little off track. and I am playing devils advocate because I don't actually agree with a ban, but just trying to demonstrate how we sometimes have to draw a line on what we find acceptable, even if it means banning certain religious laws.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An article which says what I have being trying to say.
Norway: Veil and warning
Source:
South Asia Citizen's Wire
The mysterious death of Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician, in Oslo comes as a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who speak out about the violence against women in their communities in the West.
The assimilation sentiment manifests itself in the expatriate Muslim community by the oppressive pressure placed on those that can be most easily controlled, girls and women.
THE battle over headscarves in Europe appears to have claimed its first human casualty. Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin and the first Muslim woman to support a ban on headscarves in Norwegian schools, died mysteriously after falling on train tracks in suburban Oslo. On November 14, 2005, a Norwegian human rights group, Human Rights Service, reported the news of her death, yet another catastrophe in the blood-smeared landscape of European Islam.
Samira Munir's death is a chilling deterrent to Muslim women who choose to speak out about the violence in their communities and aggressively seek reform instead of conforming to the religiously "acceptable" forms of rights discourse that are tolerated by Muslim communities in the West. Samira Munir was unapologetic about her position and unwilling to buy into the rhetoric of the liberated hijab (headscarf) increasingly bandied about by many Muslims.
For this outspokenness, this political divergence from the much-lauded camp of liberated Muslim women that celebrates the hijab as a voluntary act of faith, Samira Munir was condemned to die under mysterious circumstances. The terror of her last moments is amplified by the ominous statements that she made prior to her death. She received threatening phone calls on a daily basis and was being harassed by Muslim men who accosted her on the streets and threatened to kill her.
The intimidation did not stop there: in interviews to Norwegian newspapers Samira Munir spoke about feeling pressured by the Pakistani Ambassador to Oslo, Shahbaz Shahbaz, who twice summoned her to the Pakistan Embassy. The embassy visits were purportedly arranged to "discuss her political views". Samira Munir also said that the Ambassador had repeatedly mentioned the fact that "she still had her family in Pakistan". The message implicit in the Ambassador's reminder of this vulnerability has apparently become clear now.
Her voice was too loud and her commitment to women's rights simply too threatening to be tolerated, and she was obliterated in the isolation of a suburban Oslo train station. Here was a woman who had lived in Norway for 20 years, a Norwegian citizen and a member of the Oslo City Council. Only Norwegian newspapers reported her death. The Pakistan Ambassador, so concerned about her political views in life, did not make any public statement about her death. The Pakistani community, otherwise so vocal in all matters affecting Pakistani-Norwegians, maintained a macabre silence.
Rumours are afloat that her death may have been a case of suicide, but despite the existence of surveillance cameras in the train station no definitive account of the cause of her death is available. Unwilling to grapple with the complex political issues surrounding her death, most people seem to welcome the assumption that she simply took her own life.
The death of Samira Munir lies at the epicentre of a gaping tension between the religiously conservative Pakistani-Norwegian community opposed to any restraints on cultural practices and the Norwegian state accustomed to treating all things cultural as innately sacred and unworthy of state intervention. In the middle of this chasm lie the women whose interests Samira Munir was attempting to represent, the young Pakistani-Norwegian girls alienated from their parents' culture and prevented from identifying with Norwegian culture. In supporting a ban on the hijab in Norway's public schools, Samira Munir sought to establish for these girls the choice that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This isn't about the "majority vs the minority".
Thats a smokescreen.
Its an issue of privacy. Those in power don't LIKE not knowing who you are.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
True. is that a liberal thing or a Conservative thing? I think it is a federal Gov. thing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.
It's not really the same, it's not always painful, though, admittedly, sometimes it is, for a guy, and when it is, you can't exactly make an adjustment in public, the way a girl could with her boobs.
Girls don't always need bras though. They could wear a push-up or a corset. Or just something really tight.
She might defy gravity
But if not, there are other solutions
I don't know who this girl is, but I found this pic while searching.
Felt obliged to share.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
Boob bump
Ya, I am a mammal.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And every one has to tip toe around it, no matter how subjegating or stupid it is, because we have to respect people's religious beliefs or at least YOU do because you were founded by a bunch of religious fanatics. We on the other hand were founded by criminals, which is why we don't like authority ;}
For the record, I'm an atheist. Have been so my entire life. I was never dunked, even though my entire extended family is Mormon, and frankly, I think all religion, religious philosophy, spiritualism, and "dogma" is a load of hooey.
Back when I was in high school, I used to provoke the christian football jocks into fist fights with me, just from mocking their religion. As you have seen here on the board, I can be a super bitch, and I also used to be extremely violent and disrespectful, with little patience for untrue bulldunk.
But several years later, I realized, it's POINTLESS to try to argue against it, or fix anyone or their beliefs. All they're going to do is resist you, and fighting them just makes things worse, it CEMENTS their beliefs. People have to figure stuff out for themselves, the government and laws and fines aren't going to make them realize, oh, right, killing young girls BAD, they're just going to do it in secret instead.
All this culture clashing, it's needless, all the feelings of cultural superiority, just stuff we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good about who we are and what we do. But you know what? We've killed more Muslim girls than Muslim men have killed Muslim girls.
Otherwise, criminal solidarity, Magons. My family was polygamist not four generations back. A murderous band of thugs that killed Native Americans and non-Mormon settlers passing through, and auctioned off thirteen year olds to lecherous old men for the highest bidder. One of them founded Bountiful. Some of the other ones were slave owners in the south. So it's not so much that our country's founders ever believed so much in freedom of religion, it's more they only believed in freedom of christian religion, and oppressing the hell out of everything else, but I can see how that would be easy to overlook.
Freedom of religion in America is a relatively new thing. And still far from perfect. But it's also definitely NOT bowing to authority, because every gain for right to practice (or even not practice, for atheists!) has been clawed from discriminatory laws and the people in power.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I didn’t say “most” mosques or even “many” mosques...
Nope. You said 'mosques' without a qualifier, which in common English usage means all mosques. Sort'a like if PN says 'Jews' support something, you prebably assume he's suggesting that all Jews od so, not "most" or "many", or if someone says 'Teabaggers' have a certain position, you figure they mean all of them.
I don't doubt that some folks don't want mosques in their neighborhoods, like they don't want gun stores or liquor stores or strip clubs or scrapbooking shops or whatever, but that's a far cry from a national government making laws to ban articles of clothing some folk consider necessary for the practice of their religion.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"For the same reason Muslim mosques are having such a hard time in America..."
She could've meant it as in 'some Muslim mosques', Geezer. I can hear it either way - although first time I heard it like you did.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yes, sorry Anthony. It was quite late last night in my zone of the world, and I had a few glasses of Cab Sav, apols for not being particularly coherent.
The point I was badly trying to make was that assuming something is voluntary just because you have given an individual choice is kind of naive, particularly in cultures where individual preferences and rights are not given the same credence as the rights of the culture/family. You are really talking apples and oranges here. So my example was off topic, but to give an instance of a situtation where consent was given to horrific procedures, but it was still banned because it was horrific. It wasn't a particularly good example because those procedures are carried out on female children (often at the insistence of a mother). A better example might be suttee, where many, many women went voluntarily to their husbands funeral pyre to be burnt alive until the practice was banned. So I guess I am trying to use more extreme examples of where cultural expectations/power imbalances could lead to individuals being subjegated and abused, but seemingly with their consent. I hope I am being clearer now.
Hello,
There was, ironically, a Star Trek episode that illustrated the dilemma you describe.
A premier scientist was on the verge of developing science that could save his world from some kind of solar disaster. Unfortunately, he was from a planet where the cultural norm was for people to commit suicide when they got to a certain age so that they would not be a burden on society.
This cultural norm may have possibly had nobler roots, when an old person was likely to be terribly infirm and a strain on primitive tribes scrabbling out a meager existence.
However, in the modern era of Star Trek, where people could be healthy and productive for over a hundred years, it made little sense to commit suicide at age 60 (I'm not sure of the exact age chosen for the show, but the scientist was still healthy and robust.)
The scientist's girlfriend, who was from a different culture, railed against him for wanting to end his life early in some barbaric suicide ritual. For a time, she nearly had him convinced not to go through with it.
However, pressure from his friends and family caused him to weaken, and he ultimately chose to go through with the suicide ritual to appease his loved ones. His girlfriend was left with only a single difficult choice- Shun him and let him die without her, or attend the ritual and say goodbye, allowing him to meet his cultural obligations in peace.
It was a particularly moving episode. One of those that I consider a classic example of good Star Trek. The sort of rare jewel that has caused the show to endure for so long, despite its many missteps.
You, Magons, would seemingly wish to imprison this man and possibly send him through some kind of forced re-education process in order to save his life and prevent him from being subjugated by his society and its barbaric customs.
I would not feel comfortable doing that, because I consider the choice to end his own life something personal and inherent to his freedom. However, I would have great empathy for your position, as the injustice of it all would haunt me, too.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice story.
I don't want to imprison anyone, Anthony. You are misreading my intent if that is what you think.
However, I guess in the Star Trek story, if that practice has been banned, the man wouldn't have been put under pressure to suicide. Sounds like it was based a lot on the suttee example I was using.
If you read the article I posted, you'll see a different view from a Muslim woman who wanted the veil banned in schools, because of the 'cultural space' it would create for young Muslim women, who would not be pressured to wear it for a period of time at least, perhaps giving them more opportunity to think through whether they then wanted to wear it in later life. I like that idea.
Sadly, that woman was murdered because she spoke out against a cultural practice. And that kind of demonstrates my point about how hard it is to dissent in a culture where dissent is often greeted with violence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Nice story.
I don't want to imprison anyone, Anthony. You are misreading my intent if that is what you think.
However, I guess in the Star Trek story, if that practice has been banned, the man wouldn't have been put under pressure to suicide. Sounds like it was based a lot on the suttee example I was using.
If you read the article I posted, you'll see a different view from a Muslim woman who wanted the veil banned in schools, because of the 'cultural space' it would create for young Muslim women, who would not be pressured to wear it for a period of time at least, perhaps giving them more opportunity to think through whether they then wanted to wear it in later life. I like that idea.
Sadly, that woman was murdered because she spoke out against a cultural practice. And that kind of demonstrates my point about how hard it is to dissent in a culture where dissent is often greeted with violence.
Hello,
I hope that some of these mideast revolutions result in more free societies, although I'm not holding my breath.
Keep in mind that 'banning' a thing is making it illegal. Making it illegal is promising to imprison, attack, or kill anyone who does it.
Thus, banning a thing means that if you do it, I will arrest you. If you resist arrest, I will attack you. If you resist my attack, I will kill you.
This understanding of law makes me very careful about which laws I advocate.
I am in favor of banning violations upon personal choice, but that is a double edged sword. It means I'll defend anyone who wants to diverge from their cultural practices, but I won't spend an ounce of force making them diverge from their cultural practices.
They must make that brave choice themselves, and it is no small thing. I can encourage them, but I can't take that step for them. I won't punish anyone for failing to take it, even as I weep for their plight.
I suppose it is my own Prime Directive. A promise not to violate someone's freedom, even if it's for their own good.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
you might note that I have consistently said I am not in favour of banning on this issue, unless you are prepared to ban wearing of religious items per se. I can see that such a law would be unweildy to implement and does step over the line re individual's rights. i am playing devils advocate because I dispute that such a law is necessarily racist, and that I understand why some places have introduced a ban.
I do think that sometimes individuals need more than just encouragement in order to enact change, and that laws can be a useful way of creating change. I don't have the same view as some on this board that all laws infringe human rights, I actually think that sometimes laws protect them and protect the individual.
Labour laws in particular have prevented employers from blatant discrimination, from giving women the same pay for same work, from making workers work in dangerous environments.
And again, re suttee or sati, the practice only diminished because of laws which prohibited it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
In case you wish to view the episode I was discussing, I found a copy online:
Most people look at this episode as a commentary on how we treat the elderly, but it is obviously much more than that.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ayep, I remember that one - and I remember exactly how I felt about it too, although that was quite a while ago and I might re-evaluate my take on it.
But at the time my opinion was that if they were unwilling to accept cultural dissonance in order to save their own lives, then Starfleet should absolutely NOT, in any way whatsoever, act to prevent the logical consequences of that action, neither making any attempt to forestall the solar event, nor offering to evacuate them prior to it.
In fact, I personally would have gone so far as to inform them that since they were so willing to take that path individually, and force others to do so even against their will - then offering to assist them in preventing the solar event was exactly equivalent on a larger scale and if they were going to demand the "Resolution" on an individual scale, then they could damn well accept it culturally - and then I would have LEFT.
You can't save people from themselves, and you shouldn't oughta try.
Kind of like the situation in some parts of south africa where for various idiotic reasons they murdered most of the folk producing their food and burned the fields, and then pleaded for aid cause they had no food - I would not have shipped so much as one grain of rice to them even if it did mean watching them starve horribly, because to do otherwise means they will not learn, it means supporting the very conduct you oppose.
Think of it like loaning a friend money who makes no attempt to be fiscally responsible, and never pays you back, eventually you DO cut him off, and he suffers for it, does he not ?
Are YOU responsible for that ?
If I do not support an action, I do not support it - even if I have to restrain my conscience and better nature, such as I have, in the doing.
They learn, or they burn, it's that simple.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I always thought Starfleet was oddly selective in their execution of the Prime Directive.
Picard did a much better job with the Prime Directive in the episode about drug addiction. Where one planet supplied medicine, and another planet supplied labor. But the ships that delivered the medicine were breaking down, and Picard offered to help.
Only it turned out the medicine wasn't real medicine. The disease it treated had been gone for generations. Only the addiction to the chemical remained.
Once Picard understood this, he refused to help them repair their ships in the future. If they wanted to keep a planet of addicts, they could damn well fix their own ships.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed, and they weren't the only ones Picard left swinging on the hook of their own foolishness.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Hunted_%28episode%29
Admittedly, I laughed up my sleeve a bit, over that one.
Quote:
"In your own words, this is not our affair. We cannot interfere in the natural course of your society's development. And I'd say it's going to develop significantly in the next few minutes."
- Picard
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Prime Directive was a bit of a flawed concept, really, as most of the time throughout Starfleet they broke it willy nilly - it really was the whole point of the series, interacting with alien species. Even through interacting, you kind of break the directive. It's a silly concept really.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The Prime Directive as originally created had some value: Don't mess with primitive people. Don't even be seen by them. That was the gist.
They still managed to ignore it whenever it suited Kirk, though it was at least a simple concept at the time.
But then it was expanded to mean lots of other things in TNG. Even then, they managed to violate it frequently.
I'll give the TNG writers some credit, though. They as often created interesting dilemnas surrounding the Prime Directive as they did ignore it wholesale. When they did it right, it worked well.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yes, nothing creates a good story line quite as well as having a iron clad law and then breaking it constantly.
I'm currently watching the Enterprise series with my son. They haven't quite got the prime directive thing happening yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think laws that prevent physical harm are good, like banning suttee (using Magons' spelling here). I would consider a clitterectomy as physically harmful, especially if it was done in an old fashioned way w/o sterilized tools etc.) I guess if an adult woman wanted to do it it would be her right, but doing it to little girls is illegal in America, at least I hope it is. I don't think wearing a face veil is physically harmful, therefor I see no reason to ban it. Sure I'd not want to wear one, but it isn't about me, if someone chooses to then its their choice.
I wouldn't care if a mosque was built in my neighborhood, as long as they don't announce morning prayer time over a loud speaker while I'm sleeping, :)
I saw that Star Trek episode a couple of weeks ago, a good one that makes one think, I too thought of it as a question of annalyzing how the usefulness of a person would be measured, this culture thinks usefulness ends at about 60 or soon after, so they have teh resolution. It also adresses the issue of cultural norms and how much should we, or shouldn't we, judge those norms. I personally find the point about measuring usefullness to be more personally relevent, but both points are important. I think everyone is useful and has a place, the only time someone shouldn't be part of things is if they've lost that privelidge by murdering several folk without probable cause etc. But that is irrelevent here. That episode was on again a couple of days ago, but I didn't watch it because I'd seen it last month. I don't remember the drug addict one, maybe I haven't seen it yet.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just as a side issue in response to Riona's comment about physical harm....kind of interesting that people often rate physical harm above emotional or psychological harm and I often wonder why that is. Sometimes physical scars heal quicker, in my experience anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are right Magon's, but I think the reason why people think in terms of physical harm is because it is more tangible, more proovable, one can identify it and quantify it easier. Sometimes something that wouldn't harm most people psychologically can be devistating to someone whose system isn't working at 100 percent, so how do we measure psychological harm, unless it is something that is blatent, rape for instance does physical and psychological harm, it is bad for anyone it happens to, though outcomes vary as far as to long term affects, how emotionally scarring it is for the victim etc.
So I guess that's why people think in terms of physical harm, one can classify it easier.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not that I rate emotional harm as less than physical harm, it's that it's not up to the justice system to protect us from either one in advance. It finds abuses, and prevents further abuses, but something only qualifies as abuse if it is against the victims will.
Maybe it sounds weird to you, but I believe our experiences make us who we are, scars and all, visible or not. Frankly I admire the Muslim women for what they have to put up with. Everyone has their troubles, everyone has some people who would like to manipulate and control them. They aren't going to go away because you pass a law against them. If you want to end abuse entirely, there are other, better ways to help. You nurture the human. You help them and teach them to not become abusers OR abusees. People grow strong, they grow angry, they grow righteous, and when they cast down their oppressors, when they finally step into the light after the long dark, they grow brave.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I agree that personal will and the freedom to err is essential to true liberation.
Forcing barbaric people to be civilized is what we used to do when we (the international community) were Empires. I hope we've outgrown that tendency.
At the same time, I won't pretend not to weep for those who choose their oppression from a sense of habit, culture, or social pressure and programming. I pray that teaching them and setting the example will allow them to elevate themselves out of their mean customs.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Catching up after several days away:
Byte,Quote:
If you want them, I will give you statistics on the continuing differences in wages, ability to be hired, and much more between men and women. It still exists, and is still big, tho’ definitely less than before now. I believe WalMart is currently fighting against a lawsuit about it.
Nah, I don't think women in America getting the shorter shrift more than men is that much reality anymore, which is why I included analysis of rape, sexual harassment, and wages.
On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly with Quote:
Magons: That story is inexpressibly sad. Unfortunately fundamentalist Islam still has a long ways to go, and I think we’re real close to the cusp of its extremism, or at least I sincerely hope so. It certainly IS the most extreme fanaticism embraced by it’s more close-minded adherents (mostly, I would bet, encouraged and even directed by the Mullahs...then we get back to organized religion, power, leaders, etc.).
Otherwise, criminal solidarity, Magons. My family was polygamist not four generations back. A murderous band of thugs that killed Native Americans and non-Mormon settlers passing through, and auctioned off thirteen year olds to lecherous old men for the highest bidder. One of them founded Bountiful. Some of the other ones were slave owners in the south. So it's not so much that our country's founders ever believed so much in freedom of religion, it's more they only believed in freedom of christian religion, and oppressing the hell out of everything else, but I can see how that would be easy to overlook.
Freedom of religion in America is a relatively new thing. And still far from perfect. But it's also definitely NOT bowing to authority, because every gain for right to practice (or even not practice, for atheists!) has been clawed from discriminatory laws and the people in power.
Geezer, KPO said it for me. That’s how I intended it when I wrote it and I have a feeling you might have misread it because of your own feelings on the issue, not because of general language usage. Just my feeling.
Anthony, that episode just played here...I rarely watch Star Trek TNG anymore, I know all the epis by heart from long ago, but when there’s nothing else on, I do; it’s been so long some of them are almost new again. And I had much the same impression you did, and came to the same conclusion. Didn’t like it, but felt forced to respect his decision.
And,Quote:
Me, too, wholeheartedly. With the same caveat.
I hope that some of these mideast revolutions result in more free societies, although I'm not holding my breath.
On the other hand, when it comes to the dilemma on Star Trek, I definitely disagree with Frem. Were the choice mine, I would definitely help with the solar thing, if I could and if they wanted me to, and I would offer to relocate the population if they wanted, as well. I would like to think that, given alternatives to their practice, things would change, but I wouldn’t desert them because I find their practice abhorrent. I would also offer to relocate anyone who wanted to be relocated, if they declined all the other offers. I guess for me, everyone should be able to CHOOSE their own way and not be forced into societal norms, as long as it didn’t hurt anyone else.
I, too, saw the selective interpretation of the Prime Directive, many, many times. I’m surprised Trekkies didn’t discuss it more...but then I’ve never been on a Trek website, maybe they do. I agree with Magons on that point, that (despite their occasionally showing planets they wouldn’t contact because of where they were in their evolution) “seek out new life, new civilizations” MEANS by seeking them out, you affect their history, at the very least, and probably their development. Duh! But also yeah, I appreciated TNG and the evolution of the series from the original...my favorite was Voyager (is that what it was called?) tho’. Haven’t watched En
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME