French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[PainRack]

So, nobody is willing to comment on the issue of how banning symbols may change the culture?
Could someone more knowledgable comment how the banning of Nazi symbols helped changed the culture of neo nazism?

[Thanas]

So, nobody is willing to comment on the issue of how banning symbols may change the culture?
Could someone more knowledgable comment how the banning of Nazi symbols helped changed the culture of neo nazism?

I already did. If that is not enough, here is more:
- Nazis were forced to go through all kind of attempts to find new symbols. Eventually they decided to adopt the flag of Prussia (assholes).
- It has greatly hindered the ability of the Nazis to spew propaganda. Because a lot of them use the swastika regardless, they are easy pickings for the courts, which can sentence them to a lot of symbols.
- This in turn has forced prominent neo-Nazis to use euphemisms etc, which greatly limits their propaganda arm.

[ray245]

I already did. If that is not enough, here is more:
- Nazis were forced to go through all kind of attempts to find new symbols. Eventually they decided to adopt the flag of Prussia (assholes).
- It has greatly hindered the ability of the Nazis to spew propaganda. Because a lot of them use the swastika regardless, they are easy pickings for the courts, which can sentence them to a lot of symbols.
- This in turn has forced prominent neo-Nazis to use euphemisms etc, which greatly limits their propaganda arm.

Did the Muslim ever painted the burqa as a symbol which they can rally behind?

[Thanas]

Not to my knowledge, but the Burqa is not banned in Germany (except for civil servants and military officers).

[VT-16]

By the way, I oppose female genital mutilation because it's done without the consent of those involved.

*DINGDINGDING*
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Maybe now you'll understand some of the mindset behind those who are in support of this ban? It is a well-known fact that many women are forced to wear such accessories, for much the same reasons as can be construed to justify female genital mutilation (and male for that matter). If its primary usage is being enforced by the religious with threats of violence, I oppose it just as I would genital mutilation. Simple as that. All these strawmen with high-heeled shoes and scarfs are just as bad as any strawmen the opponents in this debate point out.

[hongi]

Maybe now you'll understand some of the mindset behind those who are in support of this ban? It is a well-known fact that many women are forced to wear such accessories, for much the same reasons as can be construed to justify female genital mutilation (and male for that matter). If its primary usage is being enforced by the religious with threats of violence, I oppose it just as I would genital mutilation. Simple as that. All these strawmen with high-heeled shoes and scarfs are just as bad as any strawmen the opponents in this debate point out.

Have you read the thread? Sarkozy said he would ban the burqa even if people want to wear it, and rest assure there are people who want to. If people are being forced into wearing the burqa, the answer is to punish those people who are forcing women into wearing them, not to go at freedom of expression with a knife. It's insane, that's what it is.

[VT-16]

Ok, I guess Germany can bring back Swastikas for people who want them un-Nazi-like, then? I don't mind people who mutilate their own genitalia willingly or wear veils for fun, but as long as its predominant use is meant to marginalize women altogether and is part of a system of repression, tough cookie.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvid ... tml?ref=nf

Two French female students have made a film of the pair of them strolling through the streets of Paris in a niqab, bare legs and mini-shorts as a critique of France's recently passed law.

Calling themselves the "Niqabitches," the veiled ladies can be seen strutting past prime ministerial offices and various government ministries with a black veil leaving only their eyes visible, but with their long legs naked bar black high heels.

Bemused passers-by can be seen gawping at the pair or asking to take photographs in the clip.

At one stage in the film, the two women approach the entrance to the ministry of immigration and national identity, only to be told by a policeman to go elsewhere.

However, a policewoman also present is delighted by their clothes. “I love your outfit, is it to do with the new law?” she asks. “Yes, we want to de-dramatise the situation,” one girl replies. “It’s brilliant. Can I take a photo?” asks the policewoman, who will soon be required to fine public niqab wearers.

In an opinion piece published on the news website, rue89, the anonymous duo – political science and communication students in their twenties – said the film was a tongue-in-cheek way of criticising France's niqab ban, which the Senate passed last month and is due to go into force early next year.

"To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: 'how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?," asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim.

"We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists – each to their own – but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional," they said.

"To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the State (as if they didn't have other fish to fry ...)."

The film had been viewed 71,000 times on rue89 and a few hundred times on YouTube yesterday, but French websites predicted it would become an internet sensation.

France's law banning the burka makes no mention of Islam, but President Nicolas Sarkozy's government promoted the law as a means to protect women from being forced to wear Muslim full-face veils such as the burka or the niqab.

France's five-million-strong Muslim minority is Western Europe's largest, but fewer than 2,000 women are believed actually to wear a full face veil.

Once the law is in force, a woman who chooses to defy the ban will receive a fine of 150 euros (£125) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined 30,000 euros (£25,000) and serve a jail term.

It could yet be overturned by France's constitutional court.

Surely those poor girls were forced into wearing those garments by their husbands or fathers.

[Julhelm]

Who gives a flying fuck what they choose? I also bet those girls are not muslim but attentionwhoring white leftwing-activists. We also outlaw walking naked down the street as it offends the majority of society. If they want to wear burqas or niqabs they can move to fucking Saudi Arabia or another islamic shithole and not further pollute the genepool here. Fuck accommodating everything and everyone just because they claim it's religion.

[Lusankya]

First: If you'd read the article, you would have realised that one of those girls was a Muslim.

Secondly: White left-wing activists have just as much a right to protest the law as Muslims.

Thirdly: Lots of things offend society. Richard Dawkins offends society on a regular basis, but I imagine you don't give a shit about that. You are complaining because these people are offending society in a way that offends you personally.

Fourthly: Wearing burqas or niqabs is not genetic, so I hardly see how people like that being in a society would "pollute the genepool" in your precious Sweden, unless, of course, you're talking about the fact that the people who wear such garments tend to have brown eyes, and you're worried about that being the dominant allele, and apparently not that common amongst "real" Swedes.

[loomer]

Who gives a flying fuck what they choose? I also bet those girls are not muslim but attentionwhoring white leftwing-activists. We also outlaw walking naked down the street as it offends the majority of society. If they want to wear burqas or niqabs they can move to fucking Saudi Arabia or another islamic shithole and not further pollute the genepool here. Fuck accommodating everything and everyone just because they claim it's religion.

Still waiting on evidence I blamed Islamic radicalism on white people being racists, shitheel. Why don't you provide that instead of pulling out some 'muslims are polluting our genepool' bullshit.

Edit:
Hang on, you do know you can be a leftist white Muslim, right, you racist shitheel?

[Julhelm]

Who gives a flying fuck what they choose? I also bet those girls are not muslim but attentionwhoring white leftwing-activists. We also outlaw walking naked down the street as it offends the majority of society. If they want to wear burqas or niqabs they can move to fucking Saudi Arabia or another islamic shithole and not further pollute the genepool here. Fuck accommodating everything and everyone just because they claim it's religion.

Still waiting on evidence I blamed Islamic radicalism on white people being racists, shitheel. Why don't you provide that instead of pulling out some 'muslims are polluting our genepool' bullshit.

Edit:
Hang on, you do know you can be a leftist white Muslim, right, you racist shitheel?

I never claimed you did, moron boy. I said you were pulling the same shenaningans that the anti-ABM crowd does where just because there is no 100% solution we should just not bother trying.

Also, hating religious people makes me a racist? That's exactly the sort of stupid behavior that has prevented any kind of debate on these things for the last 20 years. Anyone who questions multiculturalism is a racist. Why don't you fucking show me exactly where I said anything racist, fuckface?

[loomer]

How about where you complained about them polluting the genepool, Julhelm?

As for claiming I blamed it on white prejudice...

Except there are no measures that are guaranteed to fix the problem. These people already hate our guts and see themselves as soldiers fighting a holy war. You can't just blame everything on "lol white prejudice" when some groups integrate much better than others.

That's what that reads like to me. It's also odd, since I made no mention of white prejudice at all - you came out with that one.

[Lusankya]

At least two people have interpreted your "and not further pollute the genepool here" as being racist.

And that's being considerate and not worrying about your implication that the two girls may not have had any right to protest the legislation, on account of their skin not being brown enough (even though one was a Muslim herself, not that that matters).

[Serafina]

At least two people have interpreted your "and not further pollute the genepool here" as being racist.

When someone talks like that, there really is no other interpretation - it's racist.
If you are worried that such people indoctrinate their children - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried that they will establish religious laws - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried about negative influences from their culture - you don't blame it on the genes.
Those things are already borderline-racist - blaming genetics for it IS racist. There just is no other possible interpretation.

[Julhelm]

How about where you complained about them polluting the genepool, Julhelm?

Right after the sentence I denounced them as leftwing attention whores? Leftwingers is a separate race now or what? Stupid twat.

As for claiming I blamed it on white prejudice...

Except there are no measures that are guaranteed to fix the problem. These people already hate our guts and see themselves as soldiers fighting a holy war. You can't just blame everything on "lol white prejudice" when some groups integrate much better than others.

That's what that reads like to me. It's also odd, since I made no mention of white prejudice at all - you came out with that one.

Yeah, because that's what like, every single pro-multiculture opinion piece that tries to gloss over the integration problems in Europe uses as their main argument? My apologies if you meant something completely else.

Also, apparently I have to restate my position that I want complete freedom from religion. We already had one dark age when religion squashed progress and I sure as hell do not want another one.
Unfortunately it seems one cannot be against the spread of islam without being denounced as racist.

[Julhelm]

At least two people have interpreted your "and not further pollute the genepool here" as being racist.

When someone talks like that, there really is no other interpretation - it's racist.
If you are worried that such people indoctrinate their children - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried that they will establish religious laws - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried about negative influences from their culture - you don't blame it on the genes.
Those things are already borderline-racist - blaming genetics for it IS racist. There just is no other possible interpretation.

Oh fuck off. You people pull that same line all the time when talking about stupid rednecks who vote republican but when I apply to someone I thought were leftist it's OMG RACIST!

Either you are being dishonest hypocrites or your joke meters need recalibrating.

[Thanas]

At least two people have interpreted your "and not further pollute the genepool here" as being racist.

When someone talks like that, there really is no other interpretation - it's racist.
If you are worried that such people indoctrinate their children - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried that they will establish religious laws - you don't blame it on the genes.
If you are worried about negative influences from their culture - you don't blame it on the genes.
Those things are already borderline-racist - blaming genetics for it IS racist. There just is no other possible interpretation.

Serafina, why did you feel the need to interject here when there were already a lot of people engaging Julhelm? Do you like getting warnings? If so, I can arrange that for you.

[Lusankya]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I, at least, interpreted "If they want to wear burqas or niqabs they can move to fucking Saudi Arabia or another islamic shithole and not further pollute the genepool here." as referring to Muslims.

If "they" was referring to white non-muslim leftists as you presumed, then they wouldn't want to wear the burqa. At least, not outside of what is obviously a political statement aimed at protesting a law that they think is unreasonable. Is it that hard for you to believe that someone might want to protest against the banning of the niqab/burqa without ever actually wanting to wear a niqab or burqa herself?

[loomer]

How about where you complained about them polluting the genepool, Julhelm?

Right after the sentence I denounced them as leftwing attention whores? Leftwingers is a separate race now or what? Stupid twat.

Right after the sentence where you decried them as not actually being Muslims in a manner that suggests white people cannot be Muslims? I'll quote.

I also bet those girls are not muslim but attentionwhoring white leftwing-activists

As for claiming I blamed it on white prejudice...

Except there are no measures that are guaranteed to fix the problem. These people already hate our guts and see themselves as soldiers fighting a holy war. You can't just blame everything on "lol white prejudice" when some groups integrate much better than others.

That's what that reads like to me. It's also odd, since I made no mention of white prejudice at all - you came out with that one.

Yeah, because that's what like, every single pro-multiculture opinion piece that tries to gloss over the integration problems in Europe uses as their main argument? My apologies if you meant something completely else.

Maybe you should actually address the things I write, Julhelm, and not strawmans based on 'every single pro-multiculture opinion piece'. All I was saying was that banning the burqa isn't going to prevent radicalization and that the only way to do so is to deal with the underlying social issues that make radicalism attractive - which, you know, is actually a realist's view of the world, and not the 'don't even bother trying' strawman you decided to use.

-edited to fix tags-

[Julhelm]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I, at least, interpreted "If they want to wear burqas or niqabs they can move to fucking Saudi Arabia or another islamic shithole and not further pollute the genepool here." as referring to Muslims.

Even if it was referring to muslims, how is that racist? Yes it's an intolerant attitude from someone who utterly despises organised religion in any form, but how is it racist? I've fucking lived with a partner from a completely different (asian) culture for five years now and we socialise with many people from different races and cultures. I take particular offense to being called a racist, thank you very much.

If "they" was referring to white non-muslim leftists as you presumed, then they wouldn't want to wear the burqa. At least, not outside of what is obviously a political statement aimed at protesting a law that they think is unreasonable. Is it that hard for you to believe that someone might want to protest against the banning of the niqab/burqa without ever actually wanting to wear a niqab or burqa herself?

But they were obviously just doing it for the sake of protesting. And what they're protesting for is a tool used for oppression against women. Do I believe women protesting for the right to oppress women are being stupid? Yes, I do. What exactly is the problem with that?

Maybe you should actually address the things I write, Julhelm, and not strawmans based on 'every single pro-multiculture opinion piece'. All I was saying was that banning the burqa isn't going to prevent radicalization and that the only way to do so is to deal with the underlying social issues that make radicalism attractive - which, you know, is actually a realist's view of the world, and not the 'don't even bother trying' strawman you decided to use.

You are aware that the very rethoric I was talking about constantly uses the "underlying social issues" sentence to conclude white racism is to blame for the failure of integration, right? Of course the reasons are massive unemployment, poor immigration policies, (in the case of the french) real discrimination from the government and lots more but you have to start somewhere and banning the burqa works because it's a symbolic gesture. I don't think anyone intended this law to singlehandedly bring down islamic extremism.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe in another perspective, banning the burqa doesn't work because to other views, its just a bunch of conservatives making a token motion to appease the reactionaries by doing a symbolic gesture - precisely so they won't have to do any actual real gestures of improving/changing the unemployment/immigration/discrimination/whatever issues? In that instead of "defeating a symbol of oppression", the maligned minority instead sees it as another attack by a people/group that's already hostile towards them, a group that may or may not actually want to solve any of those aforementioned issues and is just content at doing some moves that shows them to be tough on Muslims to appease reactionary worries on burqas and minarets or other native European/French fears of Islamization or whatever have you.

[Julhelm]

Commiting to any real changes would cost too much so that will never happen. While I agree that it reeks of "tough on..." posture to appease reactionaries I still believe banning this particular piece of cloth is a good thing.

[Shroom Man 777]

Commiting to any real changes would cost too much so that will never happen. While I agree that it reeks of "tough on..." posture to appease reactionaries I still believe banning this particular piece of cloth is a good thing.

Not when the Mohammedians interpret it as a perceived slight towards them, which may end up doing the exact opposite with what the ban intends to do (i.e. radicalize already discontented Mohammedians, thus pissing them off and estranging them some more instead of showing them the light of glourious secular Western civilization).

[Julhelm]

Not when the Mohammedians interpret it as a perceived slight towards them, which may end up doing the exact opposite with what the ban intends to do (i.e. radicalize already discontented Mohammedians, thus pissing them off and estranging them some more instead of showing them the light of glourious secular Western civilization).

You could make the same argument against anything that offends the extremists. The majority shouldn't have to change their ways just to accomodate a small but violent/vocal group of fanatics. Either you stand up for secular values and risk stepping on the toes of christian/jewish/muslim/whatever extremists or you try to appease them. Appease them and they will just try for bigger and bigger bites.

If instead of muslim fanatics we had nazis imposing local nuremberg laws by violence and coercion in city surburbs, persecuting jews while forcing the women to remain home as baby factories, there would be no debate whatsoever as to how we should deal with them. But as soon as they're christians or muslims or another religion then all of a sudden people start bringing up excuses as to why we need to be tolerant and not offend these nutters.