Community | April 23, 2010 | 158 comments

Belgium Moves Closer to Europe's First Burqa Ban

source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1977350,00.html

Image
KSirys
In the clash of cultures between the West and Muslim world, few battles have been more fiercely fought than the one raging in Europe today over the burqa. The burqa, or full-face veil, was the law for women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and is still worn these days in the more conservative parts of the Middle East, as well as in Europe, raising questions about how far liberal democracies should go in tolerating such dress codes.

Belgium gave an answer Wednesday when parliamentarians backed a draft law that would ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted unanimously to endorse the move, which must now be approved by parliament for it to become law. Such a vote is expected by the end of April, which would make Belgium the first European country to implement a ban. Because of the support for the measure among all the main political parties, it is likely to pass.

The draft law would make it illegal to wear clothing that covers all or part of the face, which would also include the facial veil known as the niqab. Defying the rule could lead to nominal fines of $20 to $35 or possible imprisonment for up to seven days. Proponents say they're targeting the burqa not because of its religious symbolism or even because it is widely seen in the West as a sign of male oppression, but rather for safety reasons: they say that people who hide their faces represent a security risk. In that light, the law also seeks to target potentially violent demonstrators who cover their faces, backers say.
But the bill's chief sponsor, Daniel Bacquelaine of the liberal Reformist Movement party, admits that cultural considerations have also come into play. "In an open society, we need common values and we need equal rights and duties," he says. Bacquelaine estimates the burqa is worn by only a few hundred of Belgium's 630,000-strong Muslim population, but the numbers have been rising in the past decade. "It has become a political weapon," he says. "There is nothing in Islam or the Koran about the burqa. It has become an instrument of intimidation, and is a sign of submission of women. And a civilized society cannot accept the imprisonment of women."



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1977350,00.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Culture,   Actual News,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Culture,  Religion,  Protest,  12 more
  3.     
    |

158 comments // Belgium Moves Closer to Europe's First Burqa Ban

  • crystalman
    • 0
      crystalman  

    • 10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

      The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

      Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

      9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.

      The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

      . . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

      8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

      The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

      The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

      7. A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

      The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

      And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

      6. A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.

      The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

      And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

      5. Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.

      The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

      And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

      4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

      The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

      And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

      3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

      The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

      It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

      2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

      The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

      4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

      1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

      The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

      65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
  • artemis6
  • crystalman
    • 0
      crystalman  

    • http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens...

      Only in an Obama world could the country that stones, hangs, rapes to death, and shrouds their women be named to the Commission on Women's Rights.

      That collective negation of humanity, the OIC driven United Nations, continues to shock decent peoples with their savagery and barbarism. This cesspool of hate, subjugation, oppression, and corruption dictates to the world with the tacit approval of the infiltrator in the White House.

      No decent American should sanction our membership in this slaughterhouse. As the leader of the free world (despite Obama's dismantling) we should pick up our marbles, zip up our wallets and go home. But we have no virtue, no goodness. To distinguish between good and evil is an affront to the wicked. And it is the wicked we have chosen to serve.

      The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.. - Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.

      EXCLUSIVE: U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights FOX news

      Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

      NEW YORK — Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

      Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

      Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States.

      The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women's commission.

      Iran's election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
    • +1
      freecrack  

    • is it an example of inequality yes of course it is to say certain clothing is socialy unacceptable, but belium isnt a muslum society. just as it would be wrong for the west to institute a dress code for arab countries.
      wanna be a belgiun go for it, wanna be a muslum go for it, but you cant take your culture from one country and impose it on another.56 muslum countries out there, but thier culture is so important other cultures need to adhere to it?
      maybe thats why they dont get israel.

    • 2 years ago
  • Robotic091
    • -1
      Robotic091  

    • no one can't tell a jewish or hewbrew man to remove their yarmulke because of the issues in the middle east or telling a redneck he can't wear trucker hat because it lowers people's IQ

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Robotic091:

      nor does headware pose a social threat.
      face coverings do.
      fortunately for us we have jumped right to posting signs at establishments banning ski masks or other face coverings so we neednt deal with the religious element.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • -1
      2helenahandbasket  
    • Image

    • Why take this picture??

      In order for Muslim women to join non-Muslim society they MUST do away with the burqua. It's scary when regular folks can't see who they're talking to or dealing with, and a perfect place to hide destructive devices.

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
    • -1
      crystalman  
    • Image

    • http://sheikyermami.com/2010/04/24/france-busted-burqa-momma-is-fourth-wife-of-p...

      France: Busted Burqa Momma is Fourth Wife of Polygamist on Benefits with 12 Children

      On Friday, the Interior Minister requested the Immigration Minister look into revoking the French nationality of the driver’s husband as information he possessed showed the man was a polygamist married to four women with 12 children.

      “Each of these women benefit from single parent benefits and … each one wears the full veil,” Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said in the letter seen by Reuters, adding he had asked the local authorities to look into possible benefit fraud.

      “I would appreciate it, should these factors prove true, if you could study whether this individual could be stripped of the French nationality,” Hortefeux said, addressing Immigration Minister Eric Besson.

      According to the woman’s Algerian-born husband acquired French nationality in 1999.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • crystalman
  • artemis6
    • +2
      artemis6  

    • There is a negative individuality involved in wearing a burqa . Less than human , alien , yet it still it does not protect from a predators imagination . Dehumanized , the wearer is more easily projected upon by a predator . No good can come of it .

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
    • +1
      Vierotchka  
    • artemis6:

      When I was in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, I often discussed the subject with women. In both countries, most of them told me that the burqa allowed them to go visit their lovers without being recognized, it afforded them great protection.

    • 2 years ago
  • JuliusBC
  • crystalman
  • artemis6
    • +1
      artemis6  
    • Vierotchka:

      Really ? One would have to ask a woman who had lived in both worlds where she was safer . They have no frame of reference . Women ARE safer where they are considered equals . Where do you feel safer ? here or there . You cannot separate the burqa from the culture mentality . It dictates how MEN view women too .

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
    • +1
      freecrack  
    • Vierotchka:

      protection to do the wrong thing.
      the custom of concieling ones face is beyond reproach
      but the custom against promescuity ok to ignore?
      how do you defend something based on the importance of religious/social law citing examples of how it runs counter to social/religious law?

    • 2 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
  • artemis6
    • +2
      artemis6  

    • It is a symbol of enslavement for some and humility for others . Fu*k humility , ban it . Both men and women must have basic respect and SELF control .

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • Almibry
  • donkeyfly69
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • donkeyfly69:

      Have you ever seen the all girls catholic school skirts? All the same. Religion Has a herd mentality. I can find no real offence to me by someone wearing a burqa. I think people should be allowed to choose how they dress period! You take away this and what will be taken next?

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • artemis6:

      I live in america where our conservative party enjoys strippers at their get together's. I see how commercials sell everything through the over exposure of the female body. I find this very degrading to women, who are so much more than just man toys. I am not pro burqa I am pro freedom which includes being able to hide my beautiful male or female physique and face. I am not opposed to nudity either but on some level I prefer people wearing clothing.

      I think respecting the choices of others is paramount to a civil society. (As long as those choices are not harming others.) The safety concern of weapons is bull because of the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber. Neither wore a burqa.

      If we want to change religious oppression we must educate people to think not to follow.

    • 2 years ago
  • MAssappeal
    • +2
      MAssappeal  

    • what I want to know is what else these european, mostly male (sorry ladies) politicians have done for the women of europe lately?

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
  • Almibry
  • treewolf39
  • Almibry
  • JuliusBC
  • crystalman
  • randallr01
    • +2
      randallr01  

    • I bet that after a few years of living with the ban, Islamic women will start to wonder why they should wear a burqa even in private --- and then we'll have the death of the burqa. A new women's liberation movement?

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • Vierotchka
  • crystalman
  • randallr01
    • +3
      randallr01  
    • Vierotchka:

      My comment is far from meaningless. No matter how few women wear a burqa in Europe, I bet those who DID will begin to realize they can leave it behind ALTOGETHER.

      Sorry if by referencing the women's lib movement, I made it sound as if I'm predicting a New World Order.

      I'm not. ***Them bitches that can't wear them in public no more won't wanna wear 'em at all, even in private!****

      That's what I MEANT to say, but since I don't have a vagina I'm not allowed to make such comments.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • randallr01
    • +1
      randallr01  
    • Vierotchka:

      Um, no. Are you even reading what I'm typing? I'm making the hypothesis that the burqa-wearing people may just give it up altogether after they've been barred from wearing them in public. They may just decide their custom isn't so necessary anymore, as time passes.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
    • -1
      Vierotchka  
    • randallr01:

      Those who freely choose to wear it don't do it because of custom, they do it because they feel that it preserves their dignity and chastity. They don't do it because they think it is a necessary custom.

    • 2 years ago
  • freecrack
  • randallr01
    • +2
      randallr01  
    • Vierotchka:

      And after wearing them only in private, maybe they'll eventually realize that it doesn't give them dignity at all; they may just give it up altogether. (Kindof like when I realized I could get away with wearing sandals to church as a teenager.... I never went back to shoes after that.) These women weren't BORN wearing burqas. It's something they were TAUGHT by their society. And now that they can't wear them 100% of the time, their attitudes may change toward the burqa.

    • 2 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
  • donkeyfly69
    • +1
      donkeyfly69  
    • Vierotchka:

      "Those who do do so by choice."

      that can't be said about all of them. i've only known two girls who wear a veil; one did because her father forced her and she would take it off at school, the other wore it as an accessory and didn't wear it all the time.

      if the first didn't wear it she would be in shit with her dad and the later is in shit with her whole family for not wearing it all the time. i could only imagine if either of them were back in iran.

    • 2 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
  • JuliusBC
  • JuliusBC
  • crystalman
  • Vierotchka
  • crystalman
    • -1
      crystalman  

    • The Islamic veil ban is taking hold across Europe, France being on the forefront of this anti-islamization parliamentary action. Of course, America is way behind the curve in this, because the islamization of Europe far outpaces the islamization of America -- the propaganda of jihadist deception (taqiya) is in full bloom here (CAIR leads that war in the informational battlespace). And of course, Obama and the dar al islam in America are working hard to expedite the process.

      Belgium is expected to vote on a veil ban soon. France announced a couple of days ago that it would go ahead and ban the burka and niqab. French immigration minister Eric Bresson called the burka a "walking coffin." I think it's an apt description. This article also notes that the Netherlands may be the next country to announce a ban on burkas and minarets. That is, if Geert Wilders wins the election.

    • 2 years ago
  • WeBelieve
  • sonita1204
    • +2
      sonita1204  

    • Personally I feel burqas and veils are symbols of oppression, but if they've been conditioned to love it, it's none of anyone's business. Maybe I'm oppressed by my long pretty hair...Hmmm...LOL!

    • 2 years ago
  • DrKimChee
    • +1
      DrKimChee  

    • A woman’s religious choice versus a conditioned fear. Keep in mind this is Belgium not a Conservative Islamic State where choice may not be an option. Muslim women, like my sister, choose to wear a headscarve and/or veil as a sign of modestly and as a symbol of their faith. I understand the Belgians concerns about the Niqab and Burqa with the entire face being covered but I have to wonder. Who are they, parliamentarians, to decide someone’s rights to this degree? And by wearing these symbols of faith are these women robbing someone else’s rights, is there a right to gaze on someone’s face? Or does this stem from a conditioned fear that we all experienced, what can't be seen or isn't understood should be viewed as a threat or feared? We see a shadowed face in dim light on a movie screen and we identify a threat. Swimming in an ocean we look beneath only to find warm color fade to black and a sense of lurking danger overwhelms us. Is this one in the same? I wonder.

    • 2 years ago
  • chinese_democracy
    • +2
      chinese_democracy  

    • What if it's cold out? Sometimes I wear a balaclava when I go skiing. Would I be fined for that? or is it just for religious attire?
      "We're going to ban these types of clothing, that way you have more freedom of expression" it seems kind of hypocritical to me.
      I can understand enforcing this in a bank or a government building but not in public.

      'people who hide their faces represent a security risk. In that light, the law also seeks to target potentially violent demonstrators who cover their faces'

      People are not going to willingly commit crimes but decide to submit to a dress code, that is just fucking stupid.

    • 2 years ago
  • FoosMaster
    • 0
      FoosMaster  

    • I believe that everyone has the right to practice whatever dress code (religious or otherwise) they wish as long as it is not a security risk or sexually offensive to children.
      This falls under the category of "Security Risk" and should be banned. Good for you Belgium.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  
    • FoosMaster:

      Can you or anyone else for that matter show even the slightest bit of verifiable evidence that the burqa threatens national security? No you can't. Your position is no different than gay marriage opponents. Your arguments are absolutely based on unchallengeable belief sets or emotions that have no bearing (or proof for that matter) in reality.

      What you and the supporters of this bill are doing is capitalizing on the hatred of Muslims and or burqas to propose a solution to a problem that you cannot even prove exists. This is absolutely criminal and in my opinion no different than denying rights to gays based on the BELIEF that a gay lifestyle undermines society and threatens the sanctity of hetro marriage.

    • 2 years ago
  • FoosMaster
    • +3
      FoosMaster  
    • Ricky84:

      The evidence is the problems with terrorists now using them to hide in other parts of the world in order to observe and/or get close to a target. Yes, that is other parts of the world.

      It only takes common sense to see how this could be used by people that have already said that they intend to strike again. It is "in my common sense opinion" a security threat around Public Transportation and Government buildings. Do we need to wait until we have the "evidence" of the threat to those places before acting? In Public Transportation areas and Government buildings I say "No".

      I do believe the same as you, I think, on many other issues except this one. And I can not think of any "reasonable" way that gay marriage can be a security threat. I have no problem with Gay Marriage, Repealing Prohibition, Free Speech, The Right to Personal Privacy, Abortion Rights, etc… (I am merely assuming your support of these issues). I do support the ACLU and they also disagree we me on this issue because, Yes it might be used to restrict people further than that and Yes that does worry me. We must be careful not to allow any further breach of the public’s personal privacy rights and “Private” religious rights. But, this issue I feel needs some action.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  
    • FoosMaster:

      Oh wow so I guess profiling an entire segment of society is not enough, now you want to co-opt the lot into a secret terrorist underground railroad without a shred of documentation or evidence of the conspiracy. So what’s next do you ban asains from owning samurai swords because they’re positively sure (as a matter of faith) that a secret cabal of 21st century ninjas use the cover to “hide in other parts of the world in order to observe and/or get close to a target?”

      Given the nature of the situation how far should this bit of unsubstantiated logic be allowed to travel? Banning the burqa won’t do much to even slow and entire army of devout Belgium extremist from committing a terrorist act. So if the problem is as big as you say why aren’t you arguing in favor of concentration camps like the US built during WW2?

    • 2 years ago
  • FoosMaster
  • Ricky84
  • freecrack
    • +1
      freecrack  
    • Ricky84:

      if a society recognizes a threat, say things blowing up on a repeated basis by one group, then its reasonable for a govt whos job is to serve the population to regulate those activities that contribute to that threat.just as if muslums chose to exicute people for not obeying the sabbath, any govt would do what they could to handle that threat like banning anyone from concieling thier faces so we can identify those who are comiting the crime, thusly deminishing the occurance of the crime.

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
  • crystalman
  • Almibry
  • crystalman
    • 0
      crystalman  

    • http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/france-veil-ban-will-apply-to-muslim...

      Liberty, equality, fraternity, and sanity: "When you arrive in France, you respect the laws in force .... Everyone will have to respect the laws in France. That's how it is." An update on this story. "France veil ban 'will apply to Muslim tourists too',"

      "France veil ban 'will apply to Muslim tourists too'," from Agence France-Presse, April 22 :

      Muslim tourists in France will be forbidden to wear the full-face veil along with French residents under the Government's plan to ban the garment in public places, a minister said today.

      "When you arrive in France, you respect the laws in force .... Everyone will have to respect the laws in France. That's how it is," Nadine Morano, a junior minister for families, told the radio station France Info.

      Hundreds of thousands of visitors come to France each year from the Middle East, according to estimates from the tourism ministry, and veiled women are a common sight in the luxury stores on Paris shopping boulevards.

      Ms Morano said women breaching the ban would be fined but would not be unveiled "on the spot".

      Ms Morano said the planned ban was in line with France's secular principles but also aimed to give "a message at international level" and would apply equally to visitors from abroad...

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • crystalman
  • freecrack
  • RoBot_rOcKer
    • 0
      RoBot_rOcKer  

    • its good to see that these women are soon to be free from imprisonment.

      next lets work on freeing the rest of mankind from religious oppression!

    • 2 years ago
  • RoBot_rOcKer
  • Almibry
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  

    • This is a shameful act on the part of Belgium. How unsatisfied do you have to be with your own life to pursue a ban on a piece of clothing?

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • +6
      cztheday  

    • I too find the burkha to be demeaning to women...but I don't like the idea of the state deciding what people can or cannot wear so long as the clothing is being worn as a result of the person's free will (I guess I would have a problem with people running around nearly nude in front of my kids, though).

      I think this kind of precedent establishes a very slippery slope. I can't say that I am much of a fashion plate, but I know that clothing represents a very important element of self-expression for some people. Sometimes I find that a little shallow -- but other times I must admit that I am impressed with the things (other) people can do with colors and fabrics...or even the clever slogans I see printed on t-shirts.

      If the burkha is banned, how long will it be before the ban is cited as precedent for banning something else? If security really is the issue (I kind of doubt it), I have to believe that there is a less intrusive way of dealing with that concern short of a complete ban (such as that burkha wearers can wear them but must agree to allowing security to look beneath them prior to entering a public building).

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
  • Almibry
    • +2
      Almibry  
    • crystalman:

      I have Islamic friends and I can say with complete certainty that they're not all nuts. Most (not all, before you get ansy) of the ideas we (average Americans) have about them (Islamic) are surprisingly (and depressingly) based on poor translations. I wouldn't support banning any individual religion. Now if there was a ban for all religion, I would really have to think about that one.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • +3
      treewolf39  
    • Almibry:

      It has already been tried in China and the USSR. It just causes discrimination AGAINST another group of people. Personally I like to see cameras pointed at religious people who do not practice what they preach. WE must educate the masses to see how religion is used to control them.

      History shows that people really like their god(s). Take one away it will be replaced with some other crazy belief. BTW it is also used to divide the poor.

    • 2 years ago
  • DRudeBoy
  • Almibry
    • +1
      Almibry  

    • I don't like the burka. I think it's ugly. I think people who would wear one are people I wouldn't have much in common with. I get the urge to backhand burka wearers and ask them why they would think that hiding their bodies is modesty and not shame. That being said, I don't think it's the governments place to ban them.
      Sure, make them take it off for photos on their drivers license, maybe ban it from schools so younger generations can experience a life without it, and so other students don't get any weird ideas about how girls should dress, because I'd bet it wasn't their idea to wear it, it was probably their parents. But for the most part, I don't think it's dangerous, just offensive (screw you and your shame, I like my boobs *stroke*).

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • spanishinquistion
  • DRudeBoy
  • spanishinquistion
  • DRudeBoy
  • spanishinquistion
    • +1
      spanishinquistion [removed]  
    • DRudeBoy:

      Socialism is Freedom!
      Of course people should choose their own religion but if the religion doesn't make society safer then it should be trimmed back by the government some.
      We don't have true free speech in America because it is illegal to yell fire in a theatre.
      Honestly! It is a Safety Issue.
      Think Before You Speak!

    • 2 years ago
  • DRudeBoy
  • crystalman
  • spanishinquistion
  • spanishinquistion
  • DRudeBoy
  • peterzylstramoore
    • +2
      peterzylstramoore  

    • The supposed safety issue needs to be put in perspective. Any time you live in community or society your individual freedoms have the possibility of impinging on other persons individual freedoms and safety. If the case is to be made that women should be forced to not where burqa there should be significant evidence that this issue relative to other impingements on freedom would save a significant amount of lives and make a significant amount of people more safe. This calculation is usually lost however to fear mongering.

      My guess is lowering speed limits ten kilometers would save about a hundred times as many lives, but because this is an impingement on all of our freedoms and not the freedoms of a group of people that is fairly demonized in society as whole it has no political backing. We are generally far better at taking the freedoms of another in protecting our so-called safety then seriously considering how our individual actions affect the freedom of others.

      It was not to long ago historically speaking that Muslim nations were more tolerant, more open to science, etc than Christian nations. We need to have a lot more humility in pointing out the real imperialism in our relationship with Muslim nations, and in speaking positively and respectfully about the good characteristics in Muslim people and nations, if we are going to be truly safe. I don't think a burqa ban would be taken well by the muslim world as a whole, and I don't think in the long run it's worth the cost in terms of the long term negative consequences of forcing enculturation.

      It depends a lot on how the overall muslim community sees the issue in the countries considering the ban.

    • 2 years ago
  • Whitz
  • DRudeBoy
    • 0
      DRudeBoy  
    • Whitz:

      I know what you mean. At my school a lot of people look to Europe as the guiding light of the Western world.

      A lot of European countries are just as if not more racist and xenophobic than the US.

    • 2 years ago
  • crystalman
  • crystalman
  • crystalman
  • DRudeBoy
    • -1
      DRudeBoy  
    • crystalman:

      Stop spamming, post these articles in one comment. You're not interested in logical discussion or persuasion. You only post inflammatory remarks meant to elicit knee jerk reactions.

      Grow up.

    • 2 years ago
  • donkeyfly69
  • feefer2010
    • 0
      feefer2010  

    • That gives me an idea! Because of all the illegals from Mexco let's ban sombreros! This is wrong on so many levels and does nothing but slowely strip people of their rights!

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 156
more from Community:
from the community

top videos