end of the road wrote: » there worth suffering, in the case of the full vale in france especially, its effectively punishing people because "dayz mudlimz" . without saying as such
Nodin wrote: » ...a law that effectively targets one group and was introduced with that group in mind.
reprise wrote: » The errr "group" that covers their faces?
fedor.2. wrote: » Strange isn't it
reprise wrote: » The errr "group" that covers their faces? What am I missing?
end of the road wrote: » no . as it wasn't against the french nation, but those who support enforce and who brought in this bigoted racist law
Nodin wrote: » That it was directed at muslims specifically "The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subjugation, of the submission, of women .… I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory "http://thehumanist.com/news/international/france-upholds-ban-on-burqas
reprise wrote: » Sigh.... What about the Muslims that don't cover their faces. Guess you are hard wired or you are not.
jimboblep wrote: » Thats simply not true, you do realise a case was brought using that very reasoning. the ECHR upheld the ban stating " the ban was not expressly based on the religous connotation of the clothing" so its not designed to oppress muslims. unless of course your interpretation of legislation is superior to the judges in strasbourg.
Nodin wrote: » It's been explained to you. Be obtuse all you want.
Hitchens wrote: » you're the poster who always requires a link as proof of a statement.....................so, we are waiting
Nodin wrote: » It was aimed at muslims ie muslims that wear the veil.
end of the road wrote: » they weren't able to prove that it was the case so couldn't come to any other conclusion, i've no doubt though they probably realise that really "dayz mudlimz" was the reason for the law
jackofalltrades wrote: » No it's not, it's aimed at people who cover their face for whatever reasons. If a Jewish woman wanted to wear a burqa she would be stopped too.
Nodin wrote: » ~But do I always require one? No. I've explained it to you back herehttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92718254&postcount=515 If there's any question about that explanation you want to ask, feel free.
Hitchens wrote: » that's just your own gobbledegook ranting......................post a link to the law that you say doesn't apply to everyone in France (3rd time to ask)
Nodin wrote: » ......no, it was aimed specifically at muslim women who wear the veil. See the quote from Sarkozy a few posts back.
"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem, it's a problem of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom."
"We must not fight the wrong battle. In the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions."
end of the road wrote: » not the 2 laws mentioned. they are okay to break
jackofalltrades wrote: » Sarkozy didn't say it was aimed at muslim women. Here's what he said
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.
Nodin wrote: » ...which effectively targets a group of muslim women who wear face coverings. Therefore......
reprise wrote: » Therefore you are a one trick pony only capable of ever seeing racism and discrimination in everyone but yourself.
Nodin wrote: » .....is this random statement hour?
reprise wrote: » No silly. If you wear the veil in France, it applies to you, even if Sarkozy left you out. Guess you are wired for racism or you are not.
