French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[Julhelm]

But it isn't just any old garment. It is a symbol of oppression. What makes the burqa different from the swastika, then? There are people who wear swastikas out of free will as well. Should we just accept that? I thought the west was against oppression of women just like we are against genocide.

[Thanas]

Preventing women from wearing a garment ever again is a slightly different issue from preventing a people from engaging in genocide ever again.

That is pretty much dodging the issue though - why is forcing people to believe a particular set of values so bad?

[Zed]

But it isn't just any old garment. It is a symbol of oppression. What makes the burqa different from the swastika, then? There are people who wear swastikas out of free will as well. Should we just accept that? I thought the west was against oppression of women just like we are against genocide.

And we are: that's why we create laws that allow oppressed women to prosecute their oppressors, rather than creating laws that allow us to oppress their freedom of religious expression.

[Julhelm]

And we are: that's why we create laws that allow oppressed women to prosecute their oppressors, rather than creating laws that allow us to oppress their freedom of religious expression.

But here the dilemma is that we have oppressed women who through conditioning either do not want to or may not have the courage to prosecute their oppressors. Thus society will have to change the legislation so that it can prosecute their oppressors as they cannot be relied on, by themselves, to make the decision that is best for them.

That is why this law fines the husband 30.000 and by proxy fines him 150 euros anyway if his woman walks around in a burqa. We know the taliban use the burqa as a tool of oppression against women in afghanistan, pakistan. With that knowledge, as soon as they're on our soil, why should we assume they're all of a sudden wearing this garb out of free will?

[Rye]

Because a ton of them do. If you look in British muslim houses, a lot of the older generation do not wear veils while the kids do. It's a matter of self-identification as much as it is conditioned, acceptable oppression. As it is, if I want to wear a burkha I should be allowed to, and this applies to muslims too. If they are being oppressed then they'll have to man up and reach out to the help available to them.

[Julhelm]

Do you think you should be allowed to wear a swastika as well if you want to? After all that's a matter of self-identification, too.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Why exactly is "prudish tradition" not a valid reason to maintain what the vast majority of society considers to be acceptable?

Whoa, sorry, did the rules of debate suddenly change since the last time I posted? You're the one who made a positive claim, you're the one who has to back it up. I'm not doing your work for you.

Especially when it's applied equally across all genders, races, etc. as it is in the US?

It is? That's news to me, so I guess it's alright for women to go around topless, just like guys?

[Big Phil]

For everyone screeching "FREEDOM!" as if you're Mel Gibson being castrated, do us all a favor: please point out how, based on the FRENCH Constitution, this law is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, etc.

[His Divine Shadow]

Do you think you should be allowed to wear a swastika as well if you want to? After all that's a matter of self-identification, too.

I believe that is the status-quo to in most EU countries, only sure exception is Germany.

[hongi]

Do you think you should be allowed to wear a swastika as well if you want to? After all that's a matter of self-identification, too.

Yes. I do.

But it isn't just any old garment. It is a symbol of oppression. What makes the burqa different from the swastika, then? There are people who wear swastikas out of free will as well. Should we just accept that? I thought the west was against oppression of women just like we are against genocide.

How is the burqa any different from the hijab, really. One covers the entire body in just one piece of clothing, the other covers the hair, neck, ears and chest. But Muslim women are supposed to cover their entire body anyway with separate pieces of clothes, so it's in effect a burqa made up of many bits and pieces. Want to ban those? After all these ignorant hicks are obviously being pressured into wearing them, we must show them our mighty Western ways! Hand out the sleeveless shirts everyone, we're on the roooooad to salvation!

[Bakustra]

Prove it. Prove that the <2000 women who wear the niqab (26% of them converts to Islam) are forced to do so by male relatives. We have had examples of Muslim women wearing the niqab of their own free will. If it is the case that they are being forced into it, surely that would count as domestic abuse, and you could contact the French police forces with your evidence, non?

Does mental conditioning ring a bell to you? Also when it comes to converts, why should we treat them as any different from other people who willingly allow themselves to get brainwashed by religious sects. If you ask one of those underage LDS wives if the sex was concensual they'd surely claim so but that doesn't mean we should put any weight to what they say as they have clearly had their view of the world twisted.

Why is it that everybody assumes that women living under a belief system that in its radical form is blatantly oppressive of women do these things out of free will and not because they've been conditioned from childhood to believe that is the only way?

*Edit: Oh, and I don't have to prove a damn negative. Why don't you look at Afghanistan or Pakistan and ask yourself if those women are wearing burqas out of free will. As for domestic abuse that crime tends to be notoriously difficult to prosecute as abused spouses have a tendency to withdraw their complaints or even lie in defence of their spouses. Why? Because they've been mentally conditioned into being dominated and stripped of their self esteem.

I am not quite sure how to respond to this. See, you don't get to say that Islam is some sort of pulp-horror cult that crushes free will out of its adherents unilaterally. You could argue that women are conditioned to wear high heels, dresses, bikinis, pantsuits or literally any article of Western clothing. You could say the same thing about men as well- we are conditioned to wear pants and shorts and not dresses and skirts. So should we ban those as well? If Muslims lack free will, then so do Westerners, and we are right back where we started. You can't just deny that women lack free will because you disagree with their fashion choices, and if their worldview is so irrevocably twisted, there's no point to the ban beyond aesthetics anyways!

There is also a difference between pedophilia and wearing the niqab- we have decided that children do not have the mental capacity to consent to sex, because they are too young to fully understand what it means. But we do not, and should not, assume that Muslims lack the mental capacity to decide what to wear, because that is bigoted, oppressive, and just plain idiotic. This is why this becomes so charged with accusations, because it essentially boils down to pure bigotry- the belief that women cannot decide what to wear if they are of a particular religious faith. Your claim essentially boils down to Muslim women having less mental capacity for decision-making than a child!

You have also ignored the point about the converts- were they forced to convert and wear the niqab? This isn't proving a negative, this is a positive claim you are making. You claim that the majority are being coerced into it, and you lack evidence. The default is not to assume that the "brutish Mussulmen" always force their wives into the niqab.

When it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan, you need to back up your positive claim that all women in those countries who wear the burqa were forced into doing so.

[Bakustra]

For everyone screeching "FREEDOM!" as if you're Mel Gibson being castrated, do us all a favor: please point out how, based on the FRENCH Constitution, this law is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, etc.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid legalist. Legality does not equal morality, and people are arguing on moral and pragmatic grounds, not legal ones. Maybe your brain can't handle the idea of morality that isn't codified into one handy law, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is so impaired. But hey, I guess we have to oppress the women in order to free the women, right?

[hongi]

Here's a woman wearing a hijab and clothes covering her entire body. Oppression?

[Big Phil]

For everyone screeching "FREEDOM!" as if you're Mel Gibson being castrated, do us all a favor: please point out how, based on the FRENCH Constitution, this law is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, etc.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid legalist. Legality does not equal morality, and people are arguing on moral and pragmatic grounds, not legal ones. Maybe your brain can't handle the idea of morality that isn't codified into one handy law, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is so impaired. But hey, I guess we have to oppress the women in order to free the women, right?

Banning a burqa = oppression of women now, huh? Brilliant...

There is no such thing as universal morality, cockgoblin, and if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to wipe the shit out of your eyes you'd see this.

Case in point: hongi is arguing that he has the freedom to wear a swastika wherever the fuck he pleases. He's in Sydney (Australia, I assume, or maybe Canada), where as far as I know, that's legal. Were he to go to Germany and wear a swastika, he'd be laughed out of court and fined, imprisoned, and/or deported. And your "universal morality" bullshit wouldn't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.

I'll say it again, you whiny fuck: demonstrate how a burqa ban in FRANCE is unconstitutional, or shut your fucking yapper.

[Bakustra]

For everyone screeching "FREEDOM!" as if you're Mel Gibson being castrated, do us all a favor: please point out how, based on the FRENCH Constitution, this law is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, etc.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid legalist. Legality does not equal morality, and people are arguing on moral and pragmatic grounds, not legal ones. Maybe your brain can't handle the idea of morality that isn't codified into one handy law, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is so impaired. But hey, I guess we have to oppress the women in order to free the women, right?

Banning a burqa = oppression of women now, huh? Brilliant...

There is no such thing as universal morality, cockgoblin, and if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to wipe the shit out of your eyes you'd see this.

Case in point: hongi is arguing that he has the freedom to wear a swastika wherever the fuck he pleases. He's in Sydney (Australia, I assume, or maybe Canada), where as far as I know, that's legal. Were he to go to Germany and wear a swastika, he'd be laughed out of court and fined, imprisoned, and/or deported. And your "universal morality" bullshit wouldn't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.

I'll say it again, you whiny fuck: demonstrate how a burqa ban in FRANCE is unconstitutional, or shut your fucking yapper.

So if the National Front came to power in France and declared that Jews aren't human, you'd be A-OK with that? The Holocaust was just fine because it was legal under the Nazis? Apartheid was perfect until it was illegalized? Go break a bone, asshole. Break two, in fact.

If you want to equate legality with morality, then that's fine, but that means that you're just fine with genocide, too. Is that something you really believe, or are you just frightened of the Mohammedans? Maybe you could read my other posts to see my reasoning, but it doesn't revolve around laws so your tiny, fascistic brain is unable to understand.

[loomer]

Was anyone actually arguing constitutionality, though? I think it was established early on that this in line with the French constitution, in fact, but I don't think that's the current point of dissension.

[General Zod]

Do you think you should be allowed to wear a swastika as well if you want to? After all that's a matter of self-identification, too.

Considering the swastika originates from Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism, why not?

[Big Phil]

So if the National Front came to power in France and declared that Jews aren't human, you'd be A-OK with that? The Holocaust was just fine because it was legal under the Nazis? Apartheid was perfect until it was illegalized? Go break a bone, asshole. Break two, in fact.

Did you seriously just say burqa ban = Holocaust? I'm amazed you can figure out how to tie your shoes in the morning, really, I am.

If you want to equate legality with morality, then that's fine, but that means that you're just fine with genocide, too. Is that something you really believe, or are you just frightened of the Mohammedans? Maybe you could read my other posts to see my reasoning, but it doesn't revolve around laws so your tiny, fascistic brain is unable to understand.

Ooh, and now we devolve into name calling and strawmen. The last resort of the retard who's realized he's paddling up a waterfall in a paper canoe. Maybe you could call me a racist like happened to Julhelm, that'll win the argument for you.

Was anyone actually arguing constitutionality, though? I think it was established early on that this in line with the French constitution, in fact, but I don't think that's the current point of dissension.

A ban on wearing burqas in public is in line with the French constitution; if that argument had been made six pages ago, I missed it. There are two issues here that people seem to be arguing:

1. Legal - is the burqa ban legal?
Yes, it is, according to the French courts.

2. Moral - is banning the burqa in public immoral?
I see a lot of emotional and fallacious bullshit (burqa ban = oppression of women ), but nobody has made a logical case for why this should be legal. There are lots of limits on people's freedoms in all societies:
* Germany bans the public display of the swastika
* The United States criminalizes threats against the President
* Canada and the United Kingdom have fairly low standards for libel and slander, whereas the USA says it's freedom of speech.
* France allows topless sunbathing on public beaches; the United States does not (for the most part). Is this an oppression of women issue? Really?
* Smoking in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc., is illegal in Washington State. I guess smokers are being oppressed, and this is a moral issue?

The burqa is not being banned altogether; it simply cannot be worn in public. If women want to wear the thing at home, they're more than welcome to.

I don't really see a whole lot difference between this ban and Germany's prohibition on swastika and other Nazi symbols, but I'm guessing there's not going to be a whole lot of moral outrage about Nazis, am I right?

[His Divine Shadow]

Was anyone actually arguing constitutionality, though? I think it was established early on that this in line with the French constitution, in fact, but I don't think that's the current point of dissension.

Agreed. What Frances constitution says on the issue is clearly not what is being debated and certainly nobody can be forced into having to accept such arbitrary restrictions.

[Bakustra]

So if the National Front came to power in France and declared that Jews aren't human, you'd be A-OK with that? The Holocaust was just fine because it was legal under the Nazis? Apartheid was perfect until it was illegalized? Go break a bone, asshole. Break two, in fact.

Did you seriously just say burqa ban = Holocaust? I'm amazed you can figure out how to tie your shoes in the morning, really, I am.

I'm simply extending your argument, you mouth-breathing buffoon. Logically, if legality is equal to morality, all those things follow. But you can't cope with that, so you hide yourself away beneath a veil of "you're comparing the burqa ban to the Holocaust!" But you see, not everybody here is as stupid as you are- I'd venture to say that pretty much everybody that has posted in the thread is smarter than you are, because none of them is stupid enough to espouse a moral system like yours, which naturally leads to cheerleading apartheid and genocide. Frankly, I wonder whether your brain still works, or if it died long ago and you're just thinking with the ol' spinal cord. Wouldn't surprise me, given your standard of argument.

If you want to equate legality with morality, then that's fine, but that means that you're just fine with genocide, too. Is that something you really believe, or are you just frightened of the Mohammedans? Maybe you could read my other posts to see my reasoning, but it doesn't revolve around laws so your tiny, fascistic brain is unable to understand.

Ooh, and now we devolve into name calling and strawmen. The last resort of the retard who's realized he's paddling up a waterfall in a paper canoe. Maybe you could call me a racist like happened to Julhelm, that'll win the argument for you.

Maybe you could answer my question, sir. Do you sincerely believe that legality is morality, or are you just an Islamophobe? One makes you brain-dead and a fascist, the other even stupider but merely a frightened, angry man lashing out at those who dare disagree with him. Granted, there's a fine line between the two, but I'm genuinely curious. I will withdraw this if you will offer an actual argument, but until you do, my question stands.

Hey,

Was anyone actually arguing constitutionality, though? I think it was established early on that this in line with the French constitution, in fact, but I don't think that's the current point of dissension.

A ban on wearing burqas in public is in line with the French constitution; if that argument had been made six pages ago, I missed it. There are two issues here that people seem to be arguing:

1. Legal - is the burqa ban legal?
Yes, it is, according to the French courts.

2. Moral - is banning the burqa in public immoral?
I see a lot of emotional and fallacious bullshit (burqa ban = oppression of women ), but nobody has made a logical case for why this should be legal. There are lots of limits on people's freedoms in all societies:
* Germany bans the public display of the swastika
* The United States criminalizes threats against the President
* Canada and the United Kingdom have fairly low standards for libel and slander, whereas the USA says it's freedom of speech.
* France allows topless sunbathing on public beaches; the United States does not (for the most part). Is this an oppression of women issue? Really?
* Smoking in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc., is illegal in Washington State. I guess smokers are being oppressed, and this is a moral issue?

The burqa is not being banned altogether; it simply cannot be worn in public. If women want to wear the thing at home, they're more than welcome to.

I don't really see a whole lot difference between this ban and Germany's prohibition on swastika and other Nazi symbols, but I'm guessing there's not going to be a whole lot of moral outrage about Nazis, am I right?

Nobody was arguing legality, you half-wit. That's just your interpretation so that you can pretend that your bizarre, fascist-cheerleading little rants are perfectly reasonable. But your argument is incredibly dumb for morality as well. Not all of those are equal. Smoking is a public health hazard, so banning it in indoors public spaces is justifiable on those grounds. The US also criminalizes other threats- that's what assault means in many US states, so that's a natural extension of the law and justifiable on the grounds of psychological damage (but you'll probably roll your eyes at that concept too). The others are things that not everybody agrees with, but you apparently are either unable to recognize that. So be it.

But could you explain why things are fallacious, since you're so obsessed with other people's standards of debate? You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk, half-wit?

[hongi]

There is no such thing as universal morality, cockgoblin, and if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to wipe the shit out of your eyes you'd see this.

Case in point: hongi is arguing that he has the freedom to wear a swastika wherever the fuck he pleases. He's in Sydney (Australia, I assume, or maybe Canada), where as far as I know, that's legal. Were he to go to Germany and wear a swastika, he'd be laughed out of court and fined, imprisoned, and/or deported. And your "universal morality" bullshit wouldn't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.

Yes, if I wear a swastika in Germany, I might get arrested. That doesn't mean it's right for me to get arrested. There are unjust laws in the world. I don't know if the burqa ban is constitutional in France. My knowledge of the French constitution is nil. But I never argued that it was illegal anyway. I just said that it was wrong.

What do you think of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

[Cycloneman]

But it isn't just any old garment. It is a symbol of oppression. What makes the burqa different from the swastika, then? There are people who wear swastikas out of free will as well. Should we just accept that? I thought the west was against oppression of women just like we are against genocide.

Everything is a symbol of oppression to some people. The flag of the United States is a symbol of oppression to plenty of people, and it's not difficult to argue that the flag of the country that used to involuntarily sterilize native Americans and engaged in experiments with "depatterning" people with thousands of electrical shocks and drug-induced comas, all within living memory, is in fact a symbol of oppression. If we started banning all "symbols of oppression," soon enough we'd find that there were no symbols left.

The difference between the niqab and the swastika is that one of them represents a fairly cohesive line of political thought which threatens people, not only on a long-term basis with the possibility of ascension to political power, but also on a short-term basis, with things like hate crimes. On the other hand, the niqab is a garb that is worn by 2000 women in France (presumably very religious ones) and is not a threat to anyone, ever, in any way, nor does it symbolize one, unless you count "Islam."

Even if we pretend that Islam is a religion of pure, unadultered oppression in a way comparable to Nazism (which is itself a disgusting absurdity) - the niqab is not, logically speaking, an oppressive symbol any more than the pink triangle or the yellow Star of David is.

[General Zod]

But it isn't just any old garment. It is a symbol of oppression. What makes the burqa different from the swastika, then? There are people who wear swastikas out of free will as well. Should we just accept that? I thought the west was against oppression of women just like we are against genocide.

Everything is a symbol of oppression to some people. The flag of the United States is a symbol of oppression to plenty of people, and it's not difficult to argue that the flag of the country that used to involuntarily sterilize native Americans and engaged in experiments with "depatterning" people with thousands of electrical shocks and drug-induced comas, all within living memory, is in fact a symbol of oppression. If we started banning all "symbols of oppression," soon enough we'd find that there were no symbols left.

The difference between the niqab and the swastika is that one of them represents a fairly cohesive line of political thought which threatens people, not only on a long-term basis with the possibility of ascension to political power, but also on a short-term basis, with things like hate crimes. On the other hand, the niqab is a garb that is worn by 2000 women in France (presumably very religious ones) and is not a threat to anyone, ever, in any way, nor does it symbolize one, unless you count "Islam."

Even if we pretend that Islam is a religion of pure, unadultered oppression in a way comparable to Nazism (which is itself a disgusting absurdity) - the niqab is not, logically speaking, an oppressive symbol any more than the pink triangle or the yellow Star of David is.

Except the swastika is still in use in a number of Asian countries because it doesn't mean the same thing over there. The idea that it has some sort of universal meaning is pretty western-centric.

[Big Phil]

So if the National Front came to power in France and declared that Jews aren't human, you'd be A-OK with that? The Holocaust was just fine because it was legal under the Nazis? Apartheid was perfect until it was illegalized? Go break a bone, asshole. Break two, in fact.

Did you seriously just say burqa ban = Holocaust? I'm amazed you can figure out how to tie your shoes in the morning, really, I am.

I'm simply extending your argument, you mouth-breathing buffoon. Logically, if legality is equal to morality, all those things follow. But you can't cope with that, so you hide yourself away beneath a veil of "you're comparing the burqa ban to the Holocaust!" But you see, not everybody here is as stupid as you are- I'd venture to say that pretty much everybody that has posted in the thread is smarter than you are, because none of them is stupid enough to espouse a moral system like yours, which naturally leads to cheerleading apartheid and genocide. Frankly, I wonder whether your brain still works, or if it died long ago and you're just thinking with the ol' spinal cord. Wouldn't surprise me, given your standard of argument.

Ah yes, the old slippery slope. If I support a burqa ban than clearly I support genocide and apartheid. You've got quite the winning argument there.

If you want to equate legality with morality, then that's fine, but that means that you're just fine with genocide, too. Is that something you really believe, or are you just frightened of the Mohammedans? Maybe you could read my other posts to see my reasoning, but it doesn't revolve around laws so your tiny, fascistic brain is unable to understand.

Ooh, and now we devolve into name calling and strawmen. The last resort of the retard who's realized he's paddling up a waterfall in a paper canoe. Maybe you could call me a racist like happened to Julhelm, that'll win the argument for you.

Maybe you could answer my question, sir. Do you sincerely believe that legality is morality, or are you just an Islamophobe? One makes you brain-dead and a fascist, the other even stupider but merely a frightened, angry man lashing out at those who dare disagree with him. Granted, there's a fine line between the two, but I'm genuinely curious. I will withdraw this if you will offer an actual argument, but until you do, my question stands.

Don't be a tool; I'm not wasting time knocking down your strawman.

Was anyone actually arguing constitutionality, though? I think it was established early on that this in line with the French constitution, in fact, but I don't think that's the current point of dissension.

A ban on wearing burqas in public is in line with the French constitution; if that argument had been made six pages ago, I missed it. There are two issues here that people seem to be arguing:

1. Legal - is the burqa ban legal?
Yes, it is, according to the French courts.

2. Moral - is banning the burqa in public immoral?
I see a lot of emotional and fallacious bullshit (burqa ban = oppression of women ), but nobody has made a logical case for why this should be legal. There are lots of limits on people's freedoms in all societies:
* Germany bans the public display of the swastika
* The United States criminalizes threats against the President
* Canada and the United Kingdom have fairly low standards for libel and slander, whereas the USA says it's freedom of speech.
* France allows topless sunbathing on public beaches; the United States does not (for the most part). Is this an oppression of women issue? Really?
* Smoking in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc., is illegal in Washington State. I guess smokers are being oppressed, and this is a moral issue?

The burqa is not being banned altogether; it simply cannot be worn in public. If women want to wear the thing at home, they're more than welcome to.

I don't really see a whole lot difference between this ban and Germany's prohibition on swastika and other Nazi symbols, but I'm guessing there's not going to be a whole lot of moral outrage about Nazis, am I right?

Nobody was arguing legality, you half-wit. That's just your interpretation so that you can pretend that your bizarre, fascist-cheerleading little rants are perfectly reasonable. But your argument is incredibly dumb for morality as well. Not all of those are equal. Smoking is a public health hazard, so banning it in indoors public spaces is justifiable on those grounds. The US also criminalizes other threats- that's what assault means in many US states, so that's a natural extension of the law and justifiable on the grounds of psychological damage (but you'll probably roll your eyes at that concept too). The others are things that not everybody agrees with, but you apparently are either unable to recognize that. So be it.

Those examples were used precisely to point out that not everyone agrees with them, and that there are cultural differences explaining the different standards, laws, etc. But thanks for reminding me that not everyone agrees on the same standards.

I'm not the one arguing universal morality dumbfuck... you are.

But could you explain why things are fallacious, since you're so obsessed with other people's standards of debate? You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk, half-wit?

Sure thing, puffball. You've got two types going on in this thread:

1. Appeals to emotion - Claiming oppression, or burqa ban = Holocaust, are all appeals to emotion with no logical connection, unless you adhere to the slippery slope theory that first they're going to ban burqas => ban Islam => Islamic Holocaust, or some such idiocy.

2. Argument from authority - hongi just brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, presumably to try and argue that this provides him the authority to say the ban is wrong. i.e., "The UDHR says freedom of religion, therefore women can wear burqas in public." Simply because the UDHR says something does not necessarily make it so.

It would be helpful if you could demonstrate, objectively, the harm caused by not allowing women to wear burqas in public, and contrast that with the benefit of the ban. From the French perspective:

Benefit: Women are not forced to wear a "demeaning" headscarf
Harm: Women cannot publicly practice their culture/religion

In France, however, the public demonstration of religion is of lower importance than good social order, so as far as the French are concerned, the benefits outweigh the harm.

[Big Phil]

There is no such thing as universal morality, cockgoblin, and if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to wipe the shit out of your eyes you'd see this.

Case in point: hongi is arguing that he has the freedom to wear a swastika wherever the fuck he pleases. He's in Sydney (Australia, I assume, or maybe Canada), where as far as I know, that's legal. Were he to go to Germany and wear a swastika, he'd be laughed out of court and fined, imprisoned, and/or deported. And your "universal morality" bullshit wouldn't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.

Yes, if I wear a swastika in Germany, I might get arrested. That doesn't mean it's right for me to get arrested. There are unjust laws in the world. I don't know if the burqa ban is constitutional in France. My knowledge of the French constitution is nil. But I never argued that it was illegal anyway. I just said that it was wrong.

Why is it wrong to ban the swastika in Germany? Because you say so? That's not a compelling argument.

What do you think of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Why does it matter?