remove that niqab or leave!

RobYourBuilder

mike_ie wrote: »

That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people will be in open support of this, if it starts to impact the tourist trade...

Contribuables Associés (Associated Taxpayers) published a study on the cost of non EU immigration into France. It's a net drain. I wonder how many French would be in open of continued non EU/muslim immigration into France, if they were aware of this. It seems like a lot of hassle in return for very few tangible benefits.

The report is a PdF and in French.

http://www.contribuables.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/monographie14_le_cout_reel_de_limmigration.pdf

wes

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Contribuables Associés (Associated Taxpayers) published a study on the cost of non EU immigration into France. It's a net drain. I wonder how many French would be in open of continued non EU/muslim immigration into France, if they were aware of this. It seems like a lot of hassle in return for very few tangible benefits.

Immigration and Tourism are 2 different things....... I take it your aware of that, and are just pulled that out of no where, to have a go at immigration, which again not the same as Tourism. Seriously some of the non-sequitur's people resort to, are so transparent as to be pointless.

Oh and the PDF is in French, so seeing as this is an English language forum, going to be kind of hard for most of us who are non-french speakers to read that, and Google translate isn't good enough when it comes to complex topics like Taxation.

Tokyo

Tourism ≠ Immigration



[edit]beaten more eloquently by wes

RobYourBuilder

wes wrote: »

Immigration and Tourism are 2 different things....... I take it your aware of that, and are just pulled that out of no where, to have a go at immigration, which again not the same as Tourism. Seriously some of the non-sequitur's people resort to, are so transparent as to be pointless.

Playing host to muslims has already cost the French a pretty penny. The money they may lose to tourism because of this law is a drop into the ocean when compared. Over 30 million people visited Paris last year. No need for them to bend over backwards to anyone. Unlike us, the French has some self respect.

SeanW

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

but the 1% of bigots will scream blue murder over it and have people removed.

So, you're either a radical multicultural leftist, (yourself, Nodin etc) or a "bigot?" There is nothing in-between?

Glad you've clarified that ...

wes

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Playing host to muslims has already cost the French a pretty penny.

Ok, well here is a tip for the French, don't set up North African colonies, and bitch and moan about some of there former colonial subject following them home. The vast majority of French Muslims are from there former colonies. Its a bit rich for former colonialists to complain about some of there former subjects settling in there home country.

Secondly, again immigration is not the same as tourism. Its amazing that you are deliberately ignoring this. Its utterly amazing. What does immigration have to do with Tourism?

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The money they may lose to tourism because of this law is a drop into the ocean when compared. Over 30 million people visited Paris last year. No need for them to bend over backwards to anyone. Unlike us, the French has some self respect.

There already considering changes to there laws............, but I take it you ignored that fact that spurred my comments on Tourism (again not immigration).

RobYourBuilder

wes wrote: »

Ok, well here is a tip for the French, don't set up North African colonies, and bitch and moan about some of there former colonial subject following them home. The vast majority of French Muslims are from there former colonies. Its a bit rich for former colonialists to complain about some of there former subjects settling in there home country.

The "natives" of these countries wanted their independence and received it. End of story. Why should they get special treatment from a country they disowned?

Timberrrrrrrr

SeanW wrote: »

So, you're either a radical multicultural leftist, (yourself, Nodin etc) or a "bigot?" There is nothing in-between?

Glad you've clarified that ...

Oh please please please explain what makes me one of these

biko

mike_ie wrote: »

Tourism ≠ Immigration

Unless when it's welfare tourism


Jk, welfare tourism isn't really that much of an issue according to this article

Figures collected by the Department for Work and Pensions, the U.K. government body charged with overseeing the social welfare system, show that of the estimated 5.5 million people claiming working-age welfare benefits in February this year, 7% of these claims were from non-U.K. nationals. Of these, about 121,000 claims were from nationals from the E.U., meaning that E.U. nationals made up 2.2% of the total working-age benefit claimants in the U.K.

Tokyo

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The "natives" of these countries wanted their independence and received it. End of story. Why should they get special treatment from a country they disowned?

huh? You do realise that Islam is the second-most widely practiced religion in France, and that many of these people have been there for generations? It's not like they all decided to hop aboard a boat over to 'the country they disowned', a few years back...

Philo Beddoe

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The "natives" of these countries wanted their independence and received it. End of story. Why should they get special treatment from a country they disowned?

Penance?

RobYourBuilder

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

Penance?

When does this "penance" end? And why is it that only Europeans seem to be paying this "penance"?

wicklowstevo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In the winter i wear a hoodie with a scarf covering the lower part of my face, why would this be acceptable attire but a woman in a niqab not be?

if your working outside or have to spend a long time in the cold thats grand but if you want to sit in a pub like that then it is a problem . and if i was working he door id be telling you to show your face or id show you the door, it was a regular issue working doors before , i d always ask young lads to take down thier hoods or off caps going in past the cctv. if they didnt well theres the right to refuse entry

Rory28

Today a Polish man who was paralyzed from the chest down took his first steps since he lost the use of his legs. World changing medical science with a definite Nobel prize for the Doctor who came up with the treatment.

Today in whogivesatossistan some poor girl has acid thrown on her face for wearing makeup/ looking at another man/ disobeying her father/ any other stupid religious reason.

I used to be all for defending religions but not stupid stuff still stuck in the middle ages. We need to stop pandering to all religions not just Islam.

A paralyzed man is walking and we're still talking about nonsense.

wes

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The "natives" of these countries wanted their independence and received it. End of story. Why should they get special treatment from a country they disowned?

Lets see, the people who moved there before there homelands got independence, and then you know the people who sided with the French during the independence struggle and what not. Then, the people who emigrated legally, when France needed workers, and due to the legacy of colonialism could you know speak French and what not.

Its really simple, Frances Muslim populace is a legacy of there colonialism, seeing as the vast, vast majority are from there former colonies, and been there a while now.

So again, its a bit much of former colonial state to moan about some of the people who they ruled over, following them back home, decades ago at this point.

Nodin

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I am with the French on this as it happens. I don't think anyone should be allowed to wear religious garb that obscures their face in public. Grand, do it in your own home, but not in public. I think because we still have so few minorities here in Ireland we think 'ah it's only one woman, she's harmless', and indeed she is. But go to other countries where there are significant numbers of women covered up and you realise how oppressive the practice is. Not just for the women covered up but for everyone else! This woman was asked to take off her veil because she was breaking the law, which I am sure she knew, and I am fine with that. I don't think the public arena is the place to publicise your religious affiliations.

Were there significant numbers wearing it in France?

Seanw wrote:

...........radical leftist PC multicultural leftist......

You used leftist twice. You could drop a "leftist" and replace it with a "bleeding heart"...maybe add something about ivory towers.

UCDcritic wrote:

.............Sam Harris who is an expert on the subject

Sam Harris is an expert on neuroscience. On muslims hes just another prick with an opinion like the rest of us.

weldoninhio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Way to avoid answering the question :rolleyes:


Let's try again shall we?


You are going abroad tomorrow/next week/next month

Do YOU read up and learn EVERY LITTLE LAW in relation to that country?

You would check out laws relating to what you are doing. If I'm going to a country on a stag Id check out laws surrounding public drunkeness, age of consent to drink, bar and club closing times. Things that affect me.

When I was going to America I knew not to jay-walk, even though that law doesn't make the newspapers very often over here.

The Diabolical Monocle

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But that's not what happened is it?

She went to the opera and walked in clothed as she was and nothing said,

She sat in the front row so the 2999 or whatever people behind her either didn't notice or didn't care.

It was ONE performer on the stage who took spotted her during the 2nd act and that's when some cast members umbrage with what she was wearing.

She travels to the theater where many people would have seen her, No issue.

She enters the theater where many people would have seen her, No issue

She takes her seat where many people would have seen her, No issue

Half hour into the show someone spots her and has a hissy fit.




Why wasn't this bought to her attention when she entered the theater or at the box office when tickets were handed over?

sorry democratic majority, she broke the law set by those 2999 other audience members/citizens and so the show didn't continue. will of the people, dont like it leave.

Timberrrrrrrr

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

sorry democratic majority, she broke the law set by those 2999 other audience members/citizens and so the show didn't continue. will of the people, dont like it leave.

Was there a vote?

FTA69

Not to mention that nowadays most Muslims in countries like Britain and France were actually born there. In other words, they are European citizens who speak English/French and were educated and work in those particular countries. They aren't all some alien horde who don't really belong there.

Herb Powell

Deleted User wrote: »

The French have always been very protective of their French identity, the best way to see this is through the official attempts to prevent English language words "polluting" the French language, "le sandwich" is frowned upon for example.

Absolute bollocks, everyone says it, and most businesses describe it as such.

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention that nowadays most Muslims in countries like Britain and France were actually born there. In other words, they are European citizens who speak English/French and were educated and work in those particular countries. They aren't all some alien horde who don't really belong there.

Nah, it's a conspiracy against the native Europeans, with the ultimate goal of outbreeding them and establishing laws based on Islam (I swear to christ I have heard and seen this far too often, with not even a hint of irony)

The Diabolical Monocle

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Was there a vote?

Yes.

And it established a law.

RobYourBuilder

Herb Powell wrote: »

Absolute bollocks, everyone says it, and most businesses describe it as such.



Nah, it's a conspiracy against the native Europeans, with the ultimate goal of outbreeding them and establishing laws based on Islam (I swear to christ I have heard and seen this far too often, with not even a hint of irony)

Immigrants have a much higher birth rate than native Europeans. By third generation, their birth rate becomes similar to the natives. But if there is a never ending stream coming in, that doesn't really matter. Unless natives start having more children, inevitably, they will become minorities. Or outbred, as you so eloquently put it.

In 2010, just under a quarter of all newborns in France were to a parent born outside of Europe. It's no conspiracy. It's a simple numbers game.

Timberrrrrrrr

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yes.

And it established a law.

The people voted for this did they?

Nodin

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Immigrants have a much higher birth rate than native Europeans. By third generation, their birth rate becomes similar to the natives. But if there is a never ending stream coming in, that doesn't really matter. Unless natives start having more children, inevitably, they will become minorities. Or outbred, as you so eloquently put it.

In 2010, just under a quarter of all newborns were to a parent born outside of Europe. It's no conspiracy. It's a simple numbers game.

......unless they're all going to France and niqabing people, I'm not seeing the link, meself.

RobYourBuilder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The people voted for this did they?

They voted for the politicians that enacted the law. The ban is widely supported.

Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted April 7 to May 8, finds that the French public overwhelmingly endorses this measure; 82% approve of a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils in public, including schools, hospitals and government offices, while just 17% disapprove.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

Slot Machine

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

sorry democratic majority, she broke the law set by those 2999 other audience members/citizens and so the show didn't continue. will of the people, dont like it leave.

Or use that same democratic process to change the law.

RobYourBuilder

Slot Machine wrote: »

Or use that same democratic process to change the law.

A law that is supported by the vast, vast majority of French citizens?

FTA69

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Immigrants have a much higher birth rate than native Europeans. By third generation, their birth rate becomes similar to the natives. But if there is a never ending stream coming in, that doesn't really matter. Unless natives start having more children, inevitably, they will become minorities. Or outbred, as you so eloquently put it.

In 2010, just under a quarter of all newborns in France were to a parent born outside of Europe. It's no conspiracy. It's a simple numbers game.

Currently 1 in 20 in the UK is a Muslim, the Muslim population in France is around 7.5% of the total. I can't see them being over-run anytime soon.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

They voted for the politicians that enacted the law. The ban is widely supported.



http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

The people of Ireland voted for the present government that have enacted the water charge and local property tax, Does that mean the water charges and LPT are right?