Danish Conservatives Call for Burqa Ban

[ray245]

Again, I'm not talking about religion here. I'm talking about traditions. That's a hell of a difference.

You mean there's a difference?

[Julhelm]

You mean there's a difference?

You mean like how traditions transcend religion, like how christmas is basically a pagan tradition shoehorned in to fit christianity and the easter bunny never had anything to do with Jesus?

Nope, guess you're right. There isn't any.

[NecronLord]

You mean there's a difference?

You mean like how traditions transcend religion, like how christmas is basically a pagan tradition shoehorned in to fit christianity and the easter bunny never had anything to do with Jesus?

Nope, guess you're right. There isn't any.

A general trend isn't debunked by a pithy comment. Ray's point (much as I'm loath to defend him) is that religion and tradition are, in most places in the world, heavily, heavily intertwined. The Burqa is worn because it's believed to be 'modest' in the traditional mindframe. Modesty is believed to be important due to the Thar culture which created Islam. The two are, in this instance, inseperable - traditional values define and are reinforced by religious values. If you take away religious belief, the traditions associated begin to decay. Which is exactly what we see with Christmas in the West: as religious belief has become less pronounced, the importance on the Jesus aspect has diminished - though replaced with another supernatural belief, in Santa Claus.

When you see Christians moaning about their festival being hijacked, they're not making it up. It really has. Though as far as I'm concerned that's swell.

[Hillary]

And yes, I do want to enforce my views on other people from the middle east who come here, because my nordic views and values are culturally superior to theirs because mine are about 2000 years more evolved and they would benefit from leaving behind their own.

I doubt anyone here would particularly dispute that. I would, however, question this approach. For women who are forced to wear a burqa, this policy effectively makes them housebound. With the burqa being legal, it allows women to not only go out, but to socialise with others, including non-burqa wearers and, indeed, non-Muslims. What better way is there to combat these outmoded views than to allow them to realise that infidels are not the evil beings they've been brought up to believe?

***Anecdotes alert*** My wife attends evening classes and has a burqa-wearing woman in her class. Your rules would stop this woman even being outside.

I also see burqa wearers on the tube in the morning/evening going to and from work. Again, a change in the law would stop this happening.

Finally, I would also point out that I see families out and about in my local area - various members wearing burqas, headscarves and no head dress. Anecdotal, as I say, but it rather gives the lie to your assumption that all burqa wearers are forced to wear them, or that all burqa wearers are quite as fundamentalist as you make them out to be.

[hongi]

And yes, I do want to enforce my views on other people from the middle east who come here, because my nordic views and values are culturally superior to theirs because mine are about 2000 years more evolved and they would benefit from leaving behind their own.

Your 'Nordic views'? Are you a white supremacist?

[NecronLord]

I assume he's talking about the typical nordic type's views on things like healthcare and whatnot.


However, it's almost unavoidable for him to come off as some kind of racist with that terrible, repulsive, disgusting, POS avatar he has. And surely he knows it. So... yeah.

[Crazedwraith]

However, it's almost unavoidable for him to come off as some kind of racist with that terrible, repulsive, disgusting, POS avatar he has. And surely he knows it. So... yeah.

Represent Bush as a chimp its cutting political satire, represent Obama as a chimp its terrible racism?

[[R_H]]

Face-concealing headwear isn't banned everywhere in the country.

Do you happen to have a source, because I couldn't find anything on concealing identity at juraportal.dk?

They're trying to ban them everywhere except the home, you understand that?

The problem being?

Doesn't it make a metric fuckton more sense to ban them in certain areas where your face needs to be shown (like banks, shops etc) than to ban people wearing them in for example, parks?

What about in schools? What about in court? Or on public transit? And even if they'd be banned in certain areas, there's nothing stopping someone from commiting a crime in the open while wearing one, or using one to aid fleeing from the crime scene.

[ray245]

Doesn't it make a metric fuckton more sense to ban them in certain areas where your face needs to be shown (like banks, shops etc) than to ban people wearing them in for example, parks?

What about in schools? What about in court? Or on public transit? And even if they'd be banned in certain areas, there's nothing stopping someone from commiting a crime in the open while wearing one, or using one to aid fleeing from the crime scene.

Like what people have said before, ban it on the condition that all face concealing headgear are a danger to public security.

[Julhelm]

A general trend isn't debunked by a pithy comment. Ray's point (much as I'm loath to defend him) is that religion and tradition are, in most places in the world, heavily, heavily intertwined. The Burqa is worn because it's believed to be 'modest' in the traditional mindframe. Modesty is believed to be important due to the Thar culture which created Islam.

Yes, and my point is Thar culture is at odds with modern society and needs to be combated, so...?

[[R_H]]

Like what people have said before, ban it on the condition that all face concealing headgear are a danger to public security.

That's the primary reason I support a burqa ban.

[NecronLord]

Represent Bush as a chimp its cutting political satire, represent Obama as a chimp its terrible racism?

Actually; yes. There is a long tradition of denegrating blacks as 'apes' in cartoons and similar. There is no long such tradition regarding WASPs.

In much the same way, saying people who talk at the theatre should be rounded up and gassed is much less serious than saying jews should be rounded up and gassed. Because the pre-existing tradition of hate gives such things an added weight and importance they would otherwise lack.

Yes, and my point is Thar culture is at odds with modern society and needs to be combated, so...?

The point I specifically replied to was your taking issue with the sarcastic remark of 'is there a difference' - the two are so intertwined, that really, such tradition is religion. Your rebuttal that 'it's tradition I'm attacking, not the religion' isn't really legitimate - his statement that they're two sides of the same coin is most reasonable.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh yeah, it makes sense from a community policing point of view as you said, but if the only people who will care are batshit crazy anyway, is it really helping? If moderate muslims don't give a fuck, is this really supposed to reach the fundamentalists by catering to their backward needs

I suspect that there are some moderate Muslims who give a fuck that policewomen are willing to put on a wimple* before going into their mosque, just like a Japanese guy who isn't a complete ass might still care that someone was considerate enough to remove their shoes. It's not something they'd fight over, but it's a sign that the people with power over you are willing to do some give and take and that they actually give a damn what you think.

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, but I can understand why if you look on the discussion boards of Muslim-dominated forums and comment pages, you'll find people saying "this is a sign of tolerance" or whatever. They don't have to be foaming at the mouth to feel that this is a friendly gesture.

*Closest English translation of "hijab" that I know of. I see no reason for English to borrow even more words from foreign languages for things it already has a word for...
_______

The issue is not about customs in general. The issue is about legitimizing primitive customs which can then be allowed to freely infect the rest of society. I mean, we're talking about the sort of people who probably think the taliban largely got it right.

OK. So, how do we define "primitive customs" precisely enough that we can ban them without committing injustices of our own in the name of our own "modern customs?" Do medieval European customs count, too? Which ones?

"Primitive customs" is a lovely rhetorical turn of phrase for something you despise, but unless you can define it, it doesn't do much good.

You'd be surprised to know how difficult it is for people to leave idiotic traditions behind if they've been brainwashed enough to accept them. Compare it to how it's not at all uncommon for older women in the northern african region to be largely supportive of FGM.

So... the penalty for being brainwashed into wearing a tent is to be deported to a country where everyone will continue to brainwash you into wearing a tent, and will brainwash your children into wearing tents in turn? I'm not sure how that makes sense.
_______

Could you please define what it means for a country to accept a custom? Remember, at the moment, there is NO LAW against burqas in Denmark. The question is whether there SHOULD be one. Does that mean that burqas are now tolerated in Denmark, or not?

Yes, there should be one. Patriarchy is a blot on mankind that shouldn't be tolerated in modern society. Do you understand how their worldview is fundamentally at odds with the values of equality upon which our society is built? Of course we need a platform from which to combat these kinds of threats to modern values.[/quote]You answered the wrong question. The question I asked was not "should the Danes have such a law. I asked whether Denmark currently tolerates burqas, given that they do not currently have a law against them? Do they? I'd like to know.

Because if they do tolerate burqas then the idea of banning burqas because they don't is nonsense.
_______

If it was tolerated there wouldn't be a reason for the politicians to legislate about it now would there. Or do you honestly think only the politicians are reactionaries and the rest of the population just loves them burqas?

I think most of the population doesn't really give a crap either way. Most people don't care about most issues very much. I know I don't really care if someone wanders around wearing a tent as long as they don't do anything obnoxious like hitting people with a stick for not wearing tents themselves.

OK. So you contend that burqas are not a tolerated behavior in Denmark, even though they are (currently) legal. Fine. What does "tolerated" mean if not "legal?"

We need some way to define which behaviors are legal but nonetheless unacceptable in the country in question, so that we can justify making up a law to ban them. And for the sake of your own argument, it had better be a definition that somehow bans burqas but not, say, gay pride parades.
________

Do that, because they'll definitely say "NO". The burqa stands for something so fundamentally alien and different from scandinavian norms of gender equality that you'll have a hard time finding anyone who isn't already a semi-taliban to accept it.

You're missing something.

There are two basic approaches to law. One is the 'totalitarian' style, in which everything is forbidden except that which is specifically permitted. The other is the 'liberal democracy' style, in which everything is permitted except that which is specifically forbidden. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Denmark uses the 'liberal democracy' style. In that system, there's a big difference between "should we, the Danes, forbid any woman to wear a burqa for any reason?" and "do we, the Danes, think wearing a burqa is a good or necessary idea?"

I mean, I don't think it's a good idea, and it's certainly not something I'd ever expect to see people from my own culture doing, but that doesn't mean I think it should be outright banned and punished by deportation for the crime of wearing the wrong clothes.
_______

No it isn't. Either it is at odds with our society's values or it isn't. It is a carved-in-stone thing, and damned well should be. Their culture is a threat to ours and needs to be fought so it can never be allowed to gain a foothold here.

Is flaming xenophobia normally a trait of your society? If this standard had been applied in the past to all "foreign" behaviors, would the history of your country have been different, or similar?

Define "primitive tribal values," please, and explain why they should be illegal.

Because their inherent simplicity makes them attractive for unsecure indiviuals and those who already see themselves as threatened by the government. If we impose this kind of limit of "this far but not further" it makes dealing with the former much easier because we can now limit the degrees of extremism and fundamentalism they are legally allowed to reach. The ideal is a society where everybody follows modern values of equality, is it not?

OK. You have now presented an argument for why "primitive tribal values" should be illegal- they're a temptation to heresy, and therefore bad. However, since you have neglected to DEFINE primitive tribal values, that does no good, because saying "X is bad because it can cause disasters by process Y" without defining X is meaningless.
________

And yes, I do want to enforce my views on other people from the middle east who come here, because my nordic views and values are culturally superior to theirs because mine are about 2000 years more evolved and they would benefit from leaving behind their own.

Two thousand years? It is to laugh. Do you have ANY idea what your ancestors were up to a thousand years ago?

[Stuart]

I suspect that there are some moderate Muslims who give a fuck that policewomen are willing to put on a wimple* before going into their mosque, just like a Japanese guy who isn't a complete ass might still care that someone was considerate enough to remove their shoes. It's not something they'd fight over, but it's a sign that the people with power over you are willing to do some give and take and that they actually give a damn what you think. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, but I can understand why if you look on the discussion boards of Muslim-dominated forums and comment pages, you'll find people saying "this is a sign of tolerance" or whatever. They don't have to be foaming at the mouth to feel that this is a friendly gesture.

There's a small problem with this argument. That problem is that the most serious and considered opposition to the attempts by fundamentalists to enforce the wearing of the burka, jilbab, niquab and hijab comes from moslem moderates. If we look at the driving force behind the move to ban these garments in France, the Netherlands and Denmark, they are moderate moslem groups. Two examples.

In France Fadela Amara, an Algerian Moslem (female) and a leading Moslem moderate called for a ban in Burkas in these words. "[The burka is]not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic. It also represents the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation. In addition to sexual oppression and poverty, Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity." She holds that the "vast majority of Muslims" are against the burqa. "Eliminating the burqa helps women stand up to the extremists. Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties."

In the Netherlands, Naser Khader a Syrian Moslem (male) said. "the burqa is 'un-Danish' and should be completely banned in public places. We do not want to see burqas in Denmark. The modern burqa was instituted by the Taliban when it came to power and is a symbol of the Taliban."

When people in the west, undoubtedly well-meaning but deluded nonetheless, accommodate the demands of the extremists and fundamentalists, they cut the ground from under the feet of the moderates who would improve racial and religious relations by encouraging tolerance on both sides. The cry on seeing the police issuing hijabs is not "see, they respect our beliefs" but "see, they fear us" and the fundamentalists gain strength. When things like the Burka are banned, it is a blow against fundamentalism and for moderation.

[Darth Wong]

However, it's almost unavoidable for him to come off as some kind of racist with that terrible, repulsive, disgusting, POS avatar he has. And surely he knows it. So... yeah.

Represent Bush as a chimp its cutting political satire, represent Obama as a chimp its terrible racism?

Uh, yes? In the same way that calling a black guy a "nigger" is an invitation to a fistfight, but calling a white guy a "nigger" will just seem odd, or perhaps humourous depending on the context?

Frankly, Julhelm sets off my crypto-racist alarms pretty loudly, especially with this "Nordic views and values" talk. "Nordic" is an ethnic term, after all. This isn't the first time he's set off that particular alarm, either.

[Darth Wong]

There's a small problem with this argument. That problem is that the most serious and considered opposition to the attempts by fundamentalists to enforce the wearing of the burka, jilbab, niquab and hijab comes from moslem moderates. If we look at the driving force behind the move to ban these garments in France, the Netherlands and Denmark, they are moderate moslem groups. Two examples.

In France Fadela Amara, an Algerian Moslem (female) and a leading Moslem moderate called for a ban in Burkas in these words. "[The burka is]not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic. It also represents the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation. In addition to sexual oppression and poverty, Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity." She holds that the "vast majority of Muslims" are against the burqa. "Eliminating the burqa helps women stand up to the extremists. Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties."

In the Netherlands, Naser Khader a Syrian Moslem (male) said. "the burqa is 'un-Danish' and should be completely banned in public places. We do not want to see burqas in Denmark. The modern burqa was instituted by the Taliban when it came to power and is a symbol of the Taliban."

When people in the west, undoubtedly well-meaning but deluded nonetheless, accommodate the demands of the extremists and fundamentalists, they cut the ground from under the feet of the moderates who would improve racial and religious relations by encouraging tolerance on both sides. The cry on seeing the police issuing hijabs is not "see, they respect our beliefs" but "see, they fear us" and the fundamentalists gain strength. When things like the Burka are banned, it is a blow against fundamentalism and for moderation.

That's a very interesting perspective. Having said that, Danes and other European nations are often quite unabashed about using force to promote a particular "culture". In America and Canada, we have nations whose cultures are built upon "melting pot" values, and while some people think "melting pot" means "all newcomers become like everyone else", that's actually not how a melting pot works. Each new ingredient you add to a melting pot may blend into the mass, but it also subtly changes that mass. The melting pot is altered each time you add something, which is as it should be. As a result, we are pretty reluctant to make laws enforcing "culture" on people (except for the fucking French in Quebec, who do it all the time because they reject the "melting pot").

[ray245]

I suspect that there are some moderate Muslims who give a fuck that policewomen are willing to put on a wimple* before going into their mosque, just like a Japanese guy who isn't a complete ass might still care that someone was considerate enough to remove their shoes. It's not something they'd fight over, but it's a sign that the people with power over you are willing to do some give and take and that they actually give a damn what you think. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, but I can understand why if you look on the discussion boards of Muslim-dominated forums and comment pages, you'll find people saying "this is a sign of tolerance" or whatever. They don't have to be foaming at the mouth to feel that this is a friendly gesture.

There's a small problem with this argument. That problem is that the most serious and considered opposition to the attempts by fundamentalists to enforce the wearing of the burka, jilbab, niquab and hijab comes from moslem moderates. If we look at the driving force behind the move to ban these garments in France, the Netherlands and Denmark, they are moderate moslem groups. Two examples.

In France Fadela Amara, an Algerian Moslem (female) and a leading Moslem moderate called for a ban in Burkas in these words. "[The burka is]not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic. It also represents the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation. In addition to sexual oppression and poverty, Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity." She holds that the "vast majority of Muslims" are against the burqa. "Eliminating the burqa helps women stand up to the extremists. Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties."

In the Netherlands, Naser Khader a Syrian Moslem (male) said. "the burqa is 'un-Danish' and should be completely banned in public places. We do not want to see burqas in Denmark. The modern burqa was instituted by the Taliban when it came to power and is a symbol of the Taliban."

When people in the west, undoubtedly well-meaning but deluded nonetheless, accommodate the demands of the extremists and fundamentalists, they cut the ground from under the feet of the moderates who would improve racial and religious relations by encouraging tolerance on both sides. The cry on seeing the police issuing hijabs is not "see, they respect our beliefs" but "see, they fear us" and the fundamentalists gain strength. When things like the Burka are banned, it is a blow against fundamentalism and for moderation.

Except in this case, this is to a certain extend denying a woman's choice to wear what she wants. Surely, an indirect approach towards removing the burqa in the public is better than an direct approach.

I think the primary problem with women being oppressed into wearing the burqa in a developed nation such as Denmark is the fact that those women are not able to survive independently as adults.

If those women reach a level where they would not seek help from authorities when they are being forced to wear clothes against their will, and seek legal protection, then banning the burqa by itself doesn't solve the underlying problem.

The burqa is simply a representation of man oppressing the right of a women to choose. Even after you ban the burqa, there will be people to continue to oppress their daughters or wife in other manner.

Creating an environment where those women who are being forced into the burqa will actively seek help from authorities, and dare up to stand up against their family and husband without the direct intervention of the state is the right way to solve the issue in my opinion. Educating those girls who comes from a conservative family when they are in schools should be the right approach towards things.

Frankly, Julhelm sets off my crypto-racist alarms pretty loudly, especially with this "Nordic views and values" talk. "Nordic" is an ethnic term, after all. This isn't the first time he's set off that particular alarm, either.

He doesn't even bother to answer my question why should we ban the burqa universally. I fail to understand what's so exclusive about Denmark that we have to rely on "Nordic values" to justify the of banning the burqa .

[TimothyC]

Except in this case, this is to a certain extend denying a woman's choice to wear what she wants. Surely, an indirect approach towards removing the burqa in the public is better than an direct approach.

I would like to see you produce a person from a First World nation who wants to wear a burqa.

The burqa is simply a representation of man oppressing the right of a women to choose. Even after you ban the burqa, there will be people to continue to oppress their daughters or wife in other manner.

But they won't be able to oppress them by making them wear one. It's a start down a long road. Moderate Muslims do exist (My ex married one - We've talked recently after she [my ex] contacted me.

Educating those girls who comes from a conservative family when they are in schools should be the right approach towards things.

Education can't undo years of manipulation by families and communities. One thing to keep in mind Ray is that women coming out of these communities have been killed for acting too western. In Ohio there has been a case recently where a Girl has fled to Florida to escape her family after she converted to Christianity. The reason she ran was because she had a (I think) reasonable fear that she would be killed for this conversion.

[ray245]

Except in this case, this is to a certain extend denying a woman's choice to wear what she wants. Surely, an indirect approach towards removing the burqa in the public is better than an direct approach.

I would like to see you produce a person from a First World nation who wants to wear a burqa.

So? The principle of giving a woman the freedom to choose what she wants to wear still remains.

The burqa is simply a representation of man oppressing the right of a women to choose. Even after you ban the burqa, there will be people to continue to oppress their daughters or wife in other manner.

But they won't be able to oppress them by making them wear one. It's a start down a long road. Moderate Muslims do exist (My ex married one - We've talked recently after she [my ex] contacted me.

I know moderate muslim do exist, given the fact that I actually lived in a nation(Singapore) where Muslim is a rather big minority group .

And guess what? Muslim girls wearing burqa is an extremely rare sight, and there are tons of girls that choose not to wear headscarf down here.

Education can't undo years of manipulation by families and communities. One thing to keep in mind Ray is that women coming out of these communities have been killed for acting too western. In Ohio there has been a case recently where a Girl has fled to Florida to escape her family after she converted to Christianity. The reason she ran was because she had a (I think) reasonable fear that she would be killed for this conversion.

Yes it can. If we can stop child abuse by family members in status quo, we can help those girls. It's also educating the boys coming from muslim family that he has no rights to force a girl to wear a burqa.

Hell, acting western is more than revealing your face, so trying to justify that banning the burqa really solves anything simply does not stand.

Why do you have to limit yourself to banning the burqa then? Surely we might as well ban anything that is considered as conservative and Islamic/arabic.

[TimothyC]

So? The principle of giving a woman the freedom to choose what she wants to wear still remains.

A Freedom that is not absolute. The Michigan Supreme Court agrees with me (yes, different circumstances, but my point stands). If I were to wear a shirt that sayed "I'm going to kill all those fags" and wore it to a gay bar, I'd expect to be arrested, and charged with something.

I know moderate muslim do exist, given the fact that I actually lived in a nation(Singapore) where Muslim is a rather big minority group .

And guess what? Muslim girls wearing burqa is an extremely rare sight, and there are tons of girls that choose not to wear headscarf down here.

I spent a year and a half in South Western Michigan, an area with a high (for the US) muslim and arab population. I saw a wide range of issues. I'm not trying to say that all muslim girls wear head coverings, and Hijabs were more common than Niqabs which were more common that burqas.

Yes it can. If we can stop child abuse by family members in status quo, we can help those girls. It's also educating the boys coming from muslim family that he has no rights to force a girl to wear a burqa.

I left out the world always. Meaculpa.

Hell, acting western is more than revealing your face, so trying to justify that banning the burqa really solves anything simply does not stand.

But allowing the burqa helps hold back muslim women.

Why do you have to limit yourself to banning the burqa then? Surely we might as well ban anything that is considered as conservative and Islamic/arabic.

I wouldn't. I'd also ban the niqab, or other major face covering in may situations.

The issue between us Ray seems to be this:

You see a burqa or a niqab as being a fashion choice first and formost, while I see it as a sign of subservience first, and a fashion choice second..

[Guardsman Bass]

When people in the west, undoubtedly well-meaning but deluded nonetheless, accommodate the demands of the extremists and fundamentalists, they cut the ground from under the feet of the moderates who would improve racial and religious relations by encouraging tolerance on both sides. The cry on seeing the police issuing hijabs is not "see, they respect our beliefs" but "see, they fear us" and the fundamentalists gain strength. When things like the Burka are banned, it is a blow against fundamentalism and for moderation.

That's why, for example, I would definitely oppose a "wear a hijab in a muslim neighborhood" rule for female policemen, although I think you could make an argument for allowing it to be worn by a policewoman inside a particularly conservative mosque if it's not an emergency visit (i.e., if they're just stopping by and not being called out to a shooting or something like that). The latter is consideration in a non-emergency situation, whereas the former is more or less surrender on the part of the authorities to a particular religious custom.

[Simon_Jester]

There's a small problem with this argument. That problem is that the most serious and considered opposition to the attempts by fundamentalists to enforce the wearing of the burka, jilbab, niquab and hijab comes from moslem moderates. If we look at the driving force behind the move to ban these garments in France, the Netherlands and Denmark, they are moderate moslem groups. Two examples...

When people in the west, undoubtedly well-meaning but deluded nonetheless, accommodate the demands of the extremists and fundamentalists, they cut the ground from under the feet of the moderates who would improve racial and religious relations by encouraging tolerance on both sides. The cry on seeing the police issuing hijabs is not "see, they respect our beliefs" but "see, they fear us" and the fundamentalists gain strength. When things like the Burka are banned, it is a blow against fundamentalism and for moderation.

Hmm. Good point.

Though I think both cries are coming from different groups: look on the comments page of that Egyptian newspaper article you linked to and you'll see a lot of "see, they respect our beliefs" comments. So while you can reasonably say (and I think you're right) that it's bad policy because of the ammo it offers the "they fear us crowd," it's still also offering ammo to the "they respect us" crowd, too.

[Julhelm]

Uh, yes? In the same way that calling a black guy a "nigger" is an invitation to a fistfight, but calling a white guy a "nigger" will just seem odd, or perhaps humourous depending on the context?

It was supposed to portray Obama as Bush.

Frankly, Julhelm sets off my crypto-racist alarms pretty loudly, especially with this "Nordic views and values" talk. "Nordic" is an ethnic term, after all. This isn't the first time he's set off that particular alarm, either.

I could've said "european views and values" or "western views and values" but that wouldn't be correct because in Italy and Spain they might not have the exact same views as we do up here in the north. Would it had made a difference if I used the word "scandinavian"?

And yes, I do regard people who adher to Thar-type traditions as inferior to our culture, but is has absolutely nothing to do with race. What I want is for them to evolve so they can be like us and leave the past behind them.

[hongi]

And yes, I do regard people who adher to Thar-type traditions

Thar being?

[Bounty]

And yes, I do regard people who adher to Thar-type traditions

Thar being?

I can only assume it's an incredibly convoluted way to say "desert culture". Probably the latest buzzword in gasbag circles.