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...
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.
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.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » but the 1% of bigots will scream blue murder over it and have people removed.
RobYourBuilder wrote: » Playing host to muslims has already cost the French a pretty penny.
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.
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.
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 ...
mike_ie wrote: » Tourism ≠ Immigration
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.
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?
Philo Beddoe wrote: » Penance?
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?
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.
Seanw wrote: ...........radical leftist PC multicultural leftist......
UCDcritic wrote: .............Sam Harris who is an expert on the subject
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Was there a vote?
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)
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: » Yes. And it established a law.
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.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » The people voted for this did they?
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.
Slot Machine wrote: » Or use that same democratic process to change the law.
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.
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/
