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
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?
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?
fedor.2. wrote: » In a democracy they are
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
end of the road wrote: » sometimes the majority aren't entitled to have things their way
Nodin wrote: » Sneering nonsense in place of an argument. There's a shock.
jimboblep wrote: » And then they have to face the consequence, its very simple.
hoodwinked wrote: » actually it does, if it applies to hats, scarves, hoodies...etc
fedor.2. wrote: » Nah, I'm just talking about people that cover their faces in public
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.
Hitchens wrote: » no link yet?
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
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?
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.
jackofalltrades wrote: » I never said that, re-read my post I refereed to people.
fedor2 wrote: Ah it's grand so, doesn't really affect that many people..
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.
Nodin wrote: » So the young lads were wearing niqabs?
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
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.
Hitchens wrote: » link for that law that he brought in that doesn't apply to everyone on French soil?
jimboblep wrote: » No they are not.
jackofalltrades wrote: » France already regularly experiences riots.
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.
jackofalltrades wrote: » This law was brought in to stop people alienating themselves from society.
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.
