Sassygirl1999 wrote: » niqabs are fine, can the rest
Skinhead Kane wrote: » Greetings guys and girls, I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and have yet to make a real judgement on what truly would be a correct answer. If were to go to a country populated by the Muslim community we would be asked to cover up and follow their religious procedure. Therefore in Britain and Ireland I believe we are within our rights to ban something that isolates woman and was made by men to oppress them. If I were to show my hair/head in their countries, I would be seen as obscene. Recently came back from a trip and had some female friends been told by locals to cover their arms and legs as well as hair before entering out of the city centre areas. It was a very aggressive approach to and almost demanded 'or we leave the country' type of attitude. Now not using this as a reason or motive to make this topic, but it has however got me thinking. If I could vote on it, I would ban burqas and possibly hijab. What's your take on this guys? Regards, Sk
Danzy wrote: » There are other polls, by reputable and State wide polling companies in Britain that give even worse percentages on those issues. 28% of young Muslims in Britain say it is justifiable to kill for the faith, same % roughly, said the murder of the Charlie Hebdo activists was justified. In France there is about 30% as well with those views. This is not a small problem. On average the Islamic community is more conservative than the host community, but many are to the right of the inquisition. Armed extremism is small but extremist views are not small. On those %s it will not take much for armed extremism to become a serious issue in large parts of England. That is another issue though, it does not take from the Islamic community have a severe regressive belief system. If a third of Catholics had views that were at home in Franco's Spain it would be a major story and rightly so, when near the same of the Islamic community in much of Europe have views that are of many magnitudes more extreme, it is a down played. They only time a modern Left wing politician will shake hands with a person who calls for Jews and gays to be killed, who advocates wife beating, who will sit in gender segregated meetings is if that person is from the Islamic Community. The modern Left looks at the skin, many of us look at the culture and beliefs behind this.
thebull85 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZS9fcWJo Its prayer time, so f**k everyone else on the road. Corduffistan
dennispenn wrote: » She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.
Dannyriver wrote: » Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.
Giraffe Box wrote: » Very similar views though.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.
Giraffe Box wrote: » 'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp
dennispenn wrote: » It is a reference to that Brigitte Gabrielle video. The one where the peaceful Muslim asks her a question and instantly regrets it.
jmayo wrote: » As other poster commented on Brigitte Gabriel, she put it brilliantly about how the majority do not matter when you have a group within it that have such ideals and will stop at nothing to achieve their twisted aims. She likened it to commenting on how the majority of Germans in 1930s were probably grand. And the thing is a huge chunk of the muslim world have beliefs and opinions diametrically opposed to modern day Western world and the numbers that support or at least give tacit approval to the fundamentalists goals is frightening. Ehh what is wrong with Douglas Murrary and what is wrong with anti immigration movement. Mass immigration now, and we all know it basically means African and from certain parts of Asia, does not bring benefits but just strive and costs at this stage. We in Europe cannot afford all the immigrants that some want to bring in. Actually I was just talking about islam and muslims. I do know there are race issues, especially in countries such as US and even in UK & France. But the thing is I find islam the ideology repugnant no matter who is believing in it. To me it is equivalent to 10th century christianity. islam is not a colour, it is not a race. It is a religion and an ideology. Now of course you will get the ones that hate islam because they see it as the dominant religion practiced by the so called brown people (as some posters label some people from certain parts of the world). Those same people probably would have hated jews in the past, and in the case of the US historically would have hated catholics as well. You even find some people and the odd poster here who hate all immigrants be they black African, brown Middle Eastern or even a white blue eyed gent from Eastern Europe, be they catholic, muslim or protestant. One of the things I have wondering of late around here is ... Why is it ok to hate catholicism and have a go at catholic believers (as was majorily evident on threads about the pope's visit), but try doing the same with islam and muslims ? What would the reaction be if a poll in the UK found that 52% of catholics thought homosexuality should be made illegal ? What would the reaciton be if 47% of catholics said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher? What would the reaction be if 23% of catholics thought canon law, ala the inquisition, should supercede the state legal system ? There would be no amount of wailing and the media would be overrun with celebrities trying to outdo each other in showing their distain. But no one bats an eyelid when the same number in the muslim community have those opinions. It is another one of those double standards now in play in our society. PS if anyone wants to check my opinion of catholicism just in case you think you can throw the old catholic defender mullarkey back.
Dannyriver wrote: » Why do you say that s rubbish?
dennispenn wrote: » The majority..... Ah yes... That old rubbish. As Bridget Gabriel said in that famous YouTube clip seen by millions of people, the majority are irrelevant. 19 hijacker's..... 3000 dead. Etc etc etc
Dannyriver wrote: » No-ones dragging you anywhere, calm down will you. Re mindset that s exactly the point and you are projecting the extreme and rigid mindset of the few on the majority just like I experienced in the UK during the IRA campaigns of the 70's and 80's and that s where you are patently wrong...
Dannyriver wrote: » to do so is exactly what extremists want ... Trump/Bannon/writers like Douglas Murray/Farage and the anti immigration movement across the world is exactly what those pushing for a jihad want.
Wibbs wrote: » Actyally I would disagree here J, on a few levels. "Race" certainly does matter and is a large part of the issues faced in multiculturalism. Tell a Black lad from London who gets stopped by police at far higher rates than his White mates that race doesn't matter. It is my view that xenophobia and tribalism is a strong tendency in the human animal. A view that history and current affairs back up. "Race" makes identifying "The Other" much easier. And it doesn't matter from what side. In The Troubles the tribalism relied on subtle things like neighbourhood, surnames and the like to work out who was the Other, the Enemy. Imagine if Loyalists had been White and Republicans had been Black. More mayhem.
Taytoland wrote: » Douglas Murray book Strange Death of Europe is a masterpiece which will be read for generations.
Wibbs wrote: » . That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology. Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not?
Grayson wrote: » Because you're talking about banning someone based on a generality, not a specific.
You're talking about getting a billion people and deciding they're all the same.
But picking a billion people and lumping them all in with the very worst of that billion is just wrong.
And this thread specifically is about banning a woman from choosing the clothes she wants to wear because some people don't like her choice. We cannot and should not make cultural laws. We especially can't do it based on a a clothing choice.
I'm not sure why you mentioned the riots in 2011.
The common trend between the rioters was that they were young, male and without higher education
Dannyriver wrote: » Apology accepted now read the post again, I didnt call any of the above extremists, I said that they are playing into the hands of extremists by tarnishing the majority by the actions of the few. Second apology accepted in advance .
dennispenn wrote: » My apologies. Danny. I can assume that you dont believe neither are Trump, Farrage and Bannon extremist as you lumped Murray in among them. ��
Dannyriver wrote: » I didn t call him an extremist you said I did
dennispenn wrote: » Or perhaps you were just an asshole when you were about town. You wouldn't have been alone a culture of drunkenness and mainly being a menace was commonly seen around Irish areas. I digress. Nice work in avoiding the Douglas Murray extremist bit.
Dannyriver wrote: » well then you either had your head firmly planted up your hole or you are gas-lighting the whole Irish experience to suit your needs . The first isn't likely because you are clearly suspicious of others by nature so I'm guessing it's the second...and I'd doubt if anyone else on here believes you either, if anyone wants to correct me on that apologies.
dennispenn wrote: » For those that don't know who Douglas Murray is. He's a columnist with the spectator,a political commentator and an author who's latest publishing is The strange death of Europe. He's also gay,openly gay. And to call this man an extremist couldn't be further from the truth and is absurd. The group that Danny boy is trying today defend would have Murray and his kind thrown off a buildings or beheaded because of his sexual preferences. At the very least in Britain the majority of Muslim community want homosexuals locked up. .... Is this the type of society that you want to live in Danny and Co? Is this what the gay community fought for,to allow a culture that sees them as lesser humans? I saw your comment on the ira. I too lived in London when the ira tried to bomb downing street,bishopsgate,canary warf and so on. Lived there a long time. Never ever had a word said against me because of my accent. Your experience and perception of your experiences is extremely rare.
Wibbs wrote: » I don't separate the two just because I'm Irish. I can well understand why many British people would be suspicious, particularly of those with Northern Irish accents. If you're seeing all too regular examples of car and pub bombs going off targeting your population and set by a subsection of a particular demographic, yes it's an overreaction, if an understandable one to assume every member of that group is a terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser. Though let's face facts here, quite the number of Irish people in the 70's, here and abroad, would have been somewhat sympathetic to the Republican cause, even if they baulked at some of the methods. That conflict in the North and overseas costs thousands of lives and affected many thousands more on the back of ideology. Again my question is and always has been, why risk importing that kind of nonsense into a country like Ireland that has been so far free of it in ways that many parts of Europe have not? The plain faction of the biggest reasons that we haven't had Brixton type riots or the 2011 riots or the tube bombing or the Manchester Arena bombing and a list of other incidences across the EU is because we have a small multicultural population. That and not being seen as directly imperial. Monocultural nations have a strong tendency to be safer and less fractious. Though I'd personally not be fan of going fully monocultural either. Multiculturalism is like a fire, at the right level it warms your house, too high and it risks being a fire hazard.
