Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

remove that niqab or leave!

Options
1…1516182021…23

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Hitchens
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yeah, a tiny, tiny number of French muslim women wore something the right didn't like, and to try and woo voters back from another party, Sarkozy brought in a law that effectively targeted them.
    link for that law that he brought in that doesn't apply to everyone on French soil?


  • Options
    #513
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    France already regularly experiences riots.

    and? thats nothing new.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    One of the main complaints coming from the people in the areas where these riots occur is that they feel alienated from society.

    thats the most common complaint even though it isn't true. they are just complaining because their area is no longer an exclusively white area.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    This law was brought in to stop people alienating themselves from society.

    it doesn't work. all though that wasn't the reason. just a failed right wing government trying to get votes from the very extreme of the right wing populous.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #514
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    jimboblep wrote: »
    No they are not.
    they are. if one wishes not to pay the water charge thats their choice. if one wants to get up the goat of the gullible right wing in france by wearing a full vale good luck to them

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #515
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Hitchens wrote: »
    link for that law that he brought in that doesn't apply to everyone on French soil?

    This crap again?

    A law that in theory applies to everyone can still only affect a tiny minority. A law that prevents piercings in theory effects everyone but in practice only effects those who have or want same. A law that bans scattering of ashes in rivers would in practice only really affect those who request such a burial and a religion that demands its followers are buried in such a manner.


  • Options
    #516
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    Disaffected, deprived, and minority. 3 words which have nothing to do with a law against covering your face in public. It's a simple law for simple reasons, it's very understandable. You're reading way too much in to it.
    its a bigoted racist law for bigoted racist reasons. not understandable at all, and nobody is "reading way too much in to it" . they are reading it for what it is because its way more simple to read then a book, thats how predictable the reasoning for it was

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    Its Only Ray Parlour
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Its Only Ray Parlour


    end of the road wrote: »
    its a bigoted racist law for bigoted racist reasons. not understandable at all, and nobody is "reading way too much in to it" . they are reading it for what it is because its way more simple to read then a book, thats how predictable the reasoning for it was

    How is it racist?


  • Options
    #518
    Duck Soup
    Registered Users Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned liberal, but why da fuq would someone else's items of clothing need to be legislated against? Do mine socks offend thee? Does my novelty Christmas sweater make you feel uncomfortable (it is rather itchy, I'll give you that)?

    But to legislate against clothing? It's crass stupidity. To paraphrase Stephen Fry, it makes you uncomfortable. So fuggin' what?


  • Options
    #519
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,245 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Nodin wrote: »
    So the young lads were wearing niqabs?
    I never said that, re-read my post I refereed to people.


  • Options
    #520
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    Nodin wrote: »
    Prove what? Around 2,000 women wore the poxy thing. Taking the French muslim population as being 5 million, that's roughly 0.0004 percent. "social cohesion" and 'protecting French culture' my arse.

    Ah it's grand so, doesn't really affect that many people. Seems the majority of the French people are in favour, good luck to um.


  • Options
    #521
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I never said that, re-read my post I refereed to people.

    Vague crap. The law bears no relation to "social cohesion". You trying to make some link to disaffected young men is a nonsense.
    fedor2 wrote:
    Ah it's grand so, doesn't really affect that many people..

    Like defective airplanes, racism, homophobia and the like. Only affects a minority so why bother worrying about them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    Duck Soup wrote: »
    Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned liberal, but why da fuq would someone else's items of clothing need to be legislated against? Do mine socks offend thee? Does my novelty Christmas sweater make you feel uncomfortable (it is rather itchy, I'll give you that)?

    But to legislate against clothing? It's crass stupidity. To paraphrase Stephen Fry, it makes you uncomfortable. So fuggin' what?

    It's a law against covering ones face. COVERING ONES FACE, it has nothing to do with socks,sweaters or any other item of clothing.


  • Options
    #523
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    Nodin wrote: »
    Vague crap. The law bears no relation to "social cohesion". You trying to make some link to disaffected young men is a nonsense.



    Like defective airplanes, racism, homophobia and the like. Only affects a minority so why bother worrying about them?


    Nah, I'm just talking about people that cover their faces in public


  • Options
    #524
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    It's a law against covering ones face. COVERING ONES FACE, it has nothing to do with socks,sweaters or any other item of clothing.

    actually it does, if it applies to hats, scarves, hoodies...etc


  • Options
    #525
    Hitchens
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    Nodin wrote: »
    Vague crap. The law bears no relation to "social cohesion". You trying to make some link to disaffected young men is a nonsense.



    Like defective airplanes, racism, homophobia and the like. Only affects a minority so why bother worrying about them?
    no link yet? :)


  • Options
    #526
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    end of the road wrote: »
    they are. if one wishes not to pay the water charge thats their choice. if one wants to get up the goat of the gullible right wing in france by wearing a full vale good luck to them

    And then they have to face the consequence, its very simple.


  • Options
    #527
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Hitchens wrote: »
    no link yet? :)

    It's been explained to you. Be obtuse all you want.


  • Options
    #528
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    Ah it's grand so, doesn't really affect that many people. Seems the majority of the French people are in favour, good luck to um.
    sometimes the majority aren't entitled to have things their way

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #529
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    Nah, I'm just talking about people that cover their faces in public

    Sneering nonsense in place of an argument. There's a shock.


  • Options
    #530
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    hoodwinked wrote: »
    actually it does, if it applies to hats, scarves, hoodies...etc

    So it doesn't just affect Muslim women, I guess. I don't know what kind of hats you wear or wether you pull socks down over your face, just don't do it in France.


  • Options
    #531
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    end of the road wrote: »
    sometimes the majority aren't entitled to have things their way


    In a democracy they are


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    daveyeh
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    Pull the curtains love


  • Options
    #533
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    jimboblep wrote: »
    And then they have to face the consequence, its very simple.
    there worth suffering, in the case of the full vale in france especially, its effectively punishing people because "dayz mudlimz" . without saying as such

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #534
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Nodin wrote: »
    Sneering nonsense in place of an argument. There's a shock.

    Forensic nitpicking ftw eh Nodin.


  • Options
    #535
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    Nodin wrote: »
    Sneering nonsense in place of an argument. There's a shock.


    What's to argue about, you lost me when you mentioned airplanes and homosexuals in a conversation about a law that prohibits people from covering their faces in public


  • Options
    #536
    RobYourBuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    end of the road wrote: »
    sometimes the majority aren't entitled to have things their way

    No, they should listen to you instead. Are you going to retract the slur you made on the entire French nation from yesterday?


  • Options
    #537
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    What's to argue about, you lost me when you mentioned airplanes and homosexuals in a conversation about a law that prohibits people from covering their faces in public


    ...a law that effectively targets one group and was introduced with that group in mind.


  • Options
    #538
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    fedor.2. wrote: »
    In a democracy they are
    there not. it has to be justifyable. the french law on the ful vale isn't as its for bigoted racist reasons, meaning the majority aren't entitled to get what they want which is this law

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #539
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Duck Soup wrote: »
    Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned liberal, but why da fuq would someone else's items of clothing need to be legislated against? Do mine socks offend thee? Does my novelty Christmas sweater make you feel uncomfortable (it is rather itchy, I'll give you that)?

    But to legislate against clothing? It's crass stupidity. To paraphrase Stephen Fry, it makes you uncomfortable. So fuggin' what?

    It's not against clothing, it;s against having the face covered. There's a bit of a difference, they can cover their hair and wear the black, I don't know what you call them..gown..or whatever, if they want.

    They just can't cover their face. And I think that's fair.


  • Options
    #540
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    RobYourBuilder wrote: »
    No, they should listen to you instead. Are you going to retract the slur you made on the entire French nation from yesterday?
    no . as it wasn't against the french nation, but those who support enforce and who brought in this bigoted racist law

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    fedor.2.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    end of the road wrote: »
    there not. it has to be justifyable. the french law on the ful vale isn't as its for bigoted racist reasons, meaning the majority aren't entitled to get what they want which is this law

    But they have this law, which the majority of the French public support.


Advertisement