Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils..[W:48]

[Muhammed]

Re: Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils.....

Arrest that woman!

 

[gunner]

Mornin' Gunner. :2wave: I can understand the feelings. While in the west some can pick up on body language and facial expressions.....which the Niqab can hide. It's a shame that it is just the Arab and muslim women are the ones that have to bear the brunt of such laws being enacted all due to the plight of their Alleged Religion.

Truly I wish it was their men.....as I would have no problem pointing out any conducting of business. They will take off their facial covering. As well as not putting up with them standing there thinking they could even approach me as so. I wouldn't have no trouble taking that **** off their face. Whether they liked or not.

I can remember reading sometime ago about one of our politicians who worked in a constituency that had many veiled Muslims. He's known for being a likable politician and his argument was centred on 'human interaction' as being pivotal to 'human behaviour'

"The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult."

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | 'Remove full veils' urges Straw

This was back in 2006, and at the time had mixed reactions. I watched a interview with Jack Straw years after and he went into the subject in-depth, he basically said he was finding it very difficult to build any sort of interaction with 'faceless' women coming into his surgery. I can imagine his frustration.

Paul

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Hows that work.....when there are jerk offs that will kill one for just opening their mouth thinking they can exercise that Right? Bit different than just getting socked in the jaw.

That Laws and rights can't guarantee or force people to act a certain way. The most they can do is serve as a means to remove and punish people that don't act in accordance with legal norms

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils.....

Private? I've sent you NO private message.

No one said you did. What I did was point out this is a private forum.

This is an 'open board' the analogy is just fine.

No it isn't, being that the entire point of such rights as 'free speech" specifically relate to governments who have the ability to leverage a monopoly on a society. DP has no such power and I am free to find other political forums if I don't agree with the rules. Hence why they can limit what is topical in the ME forum and able to apply rules of conduct that just don't exist in public

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.

I really fail to see why that would require the the govt to act on something. It's like advocating people should be locked up for being disagreeable pricks, akin to forcing people to wear bright colors or only think happy thoughts

 

[Rainman05]

Re: Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils.....

Arrest that woman!

How many doctors do you see wearing masks outside of the hospital, where, btw, there are laws that require them to wear those.

 

[gunner]

I really fail to see why that would require the the govt to act on something. It's like advocating people should be locked up for being disagreeable pricks, akin to forcing people to wear bright colors or only think happy thoughts

You are missing the point. Straw was 'unable' to carry out his work effectively due to the communication issue. Hence, he correctly assumed this would also be a problem within the wider community and hamper community cohesion and harmony. You have to be familiar with multiculturalism to understand such contention.

Paul

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

You are missing the point. Straw was 'unable' to carry out his work effectively due to the communication issue. Hence, he correctly assumed this would also be a problem within the wider community and hamper community cohesion and harmony.

So would people behaving like disagreeable pricks. So I am unsure how I am missing the point.

Don't want people like that in your country, then don't let them immigrate. Because their attitudes are not simply going to change by removing their ability to wear a burqa. It's like trying to address loss of positive economic outlook by legislating forced smiling

You have to be familiar with multiculturalism to understand such contention.

While I feel like I more than understand the topic, feel free to explain it to me

 

[MMC]

Re: Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils.....

Arrest that woman!

Do I get to frisk her then? :lol: ..... :2razz:

 

[Gardener]

. You have to be familiar with multiculturalism to understand such contention.

Paul

Multiculturalism? One can certainly "understand" this political convention predicated upon enormous hypocrisy without becoming a slave to it.

Why anybody would be so completely dogmatic and unquestioning as to think that this formation of ridiculous double standards offers any sort of enlightened model for civilization is beyond me. Sure, it's nice when one's mates give them props for talking out of both sides of their mouth, but at the end of the day they are still talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[MMC]

Multiculturalism? One can certainly "understand" this political convention predicated upon enormous hypocrisy without becoming a slave to it.

Why anybody would be so completely dogmatic and unquestioning as to think that this formation of ridiculous double standards offers any sort of enlightened model for civilization is beyond me. Sure, it's nice when one's mates give them props for talking out of both sides of their mouth, but at the end of the day they are still talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Heya Gardner, :2wave: Didn't stop France and Belgium from passing it as a Law of the Land.

 

[Arcana XV]

When you take into account that only 2% of Ticino's 340,000 residents identify as Muslim, and none are known to wear face veils, this sounds like much ado about nothing to me. Good job Ticino for voting to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils. Now, you just have to hope that you can find someone who wears one to enforce it. Because according to Ghiringhelli, no one in ticino wears one.

From the mouth of Giorgio Ghiringhelli, a 61-year-old political activist who proposed the vote.



Swiss Canton Puts Burqa Ban to a Vote - WSJ.com

That's true, as far as I know. Most of the niqab wearers (I've never seen anyone in an actual burka) are here in Geneva and they are ALL rich Saudi Arabian tourists. I think this vote is like the minaret ban vote, more symbolic than anything else. It's a way of saying "You wanna live here? You do it by our rules." Which in a way makes sense. I mean when we go to their countries we're expected to be respectful of their customs. The least they can do is return the favor. I don't think it should be a law, though.

 

[gunner]

So would people behaving like disagreeable pricks. So I am unsure how I am missing the point.

We are not discussing 'disagreeable pricks' now, are we?

Don't want people like that in your country, then don't let them immigrate

.

Where have I said that? Besides, what a ridiculous assertion.

Because their attitudes are not simply going to change by removing their ability to wear a burqa. It's like trying to address loss of positive economic outlook by legislating forced smiling

Who said anything about changing their attitudes? This is not some kind of re-education program, rather, the objection to women face coverings whilst trying to communicate. Is that to much to comprehend?

Multiculturalism? One can certainly "understand" this political convention predicated upon enormous hypocrisy without becoming a slave to it.

Why anybody would be so completely dogmatic and unquestioning as to think that this formation of ridiculous double standards offers any sort of enlightened model for civilization is beyond me. Sure, it's nice when one's mates give them props for talking out of both sides of their mouth, but at the end of the day they are still talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Do not mistake my recognition of the term 'multiculturalism' with support for the idea. For one, it is contentious not only in practice but in meaning also. As I view it, it's nothing more than a collection of different ethnicities and religions occupying the same country. The UK is just that. What follows of course, is the degree to which one lives in harmony with ones neighbour

Paul

 

[gunner]

That's true, as far as I know. Most of the niqab wearers (I've never seen anyone in an actual burka) are here in Geneva and they are ALL rich Saudi Arabian tourists. I think this vote is like the minaret ban vote, more symbolic than anything else. It's a way of saying "You wanna live here? You do it by our rules." Which in a way makes sense. I mean when we go to their countries we're expected to be respectful of their customs. The least they can do is return the favor. I don't think it should be a law, though.

That's it in a nutshell really. I consider myself reasonably well travelled, and part of the attraction for me is experiencing different customs and cultural differences. For sure, when I return to my 'all inclusive' hotel, that caters for my needs, I revert to type; but on the whole I get more pleasure when exploring the different norms and actively seek out that which is new to me

Paul

 

[Gardener]

We are not discussing 'disagreeable pricks' now, are we?

I don't know,Paul. Mine certainly does not agree with me to nearly the extent it did 40 years ago. We got along an awful lot better, then.

.

Do not mistake my recognition of the term 'multiculturalism' with support for the idea. For one, it is contentious not only in practice but in meaning also. As I view it, it's nothing more than a collection of different ethnicities and religions occupying the same country. The UK is just that. What follows of course, is the degree to which one lives in harmony with ones neighbour

Paul

If it were just a matter of different ethnicities living side by side in mutual harmony, then it would not be multiculturalist . It becomes multiculturalist when different standards for behavior apply to the different groups.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

We are not discussing 'disagreeable pricks' now, are we?

No, but you are suggesting something needs to be legislated on due to the fact it impede communication and undermines the cohesiveness of the community. Hence, a disagreeable prick works as a good analogy

.

Where have I said that? Besides, what a ridiculous assertion.

How is it ridiculous? You're seemingly suggesting the concern here is integration. Removing the Burqa isn't going to change the fact these people have no interest in integrating

Who said anything about changing their attitudes? This is not some kind of re-education program, rather, the objection to women face coverings whilst trying to communicate. Is that to much to comprehend?

Who said anything about changing their attitudes? This is not some kind of re-education program, rather, the objection to women face coverings whilst trying to communicate. Is that to much to comprehend?

Did you read the article you posted? It's clearly discussing integration:

<<<Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day>>>

<<<He said he was worried the "implications of separateness" and the development of "parallel communities">>>

 

[gunner]

I don't know,Paul. Mine certainly does not agree with me to nearly the extent it did 40 years ago. We got along an awful lot better, then.

I can't say I'm looking forward to such an affliction:-(
.

If it were just a matter of different ethnicities living side by side in mutual harmony, then it would not be multiculturalist . It becomes multiculturalist when different standards for behavior apply to the different groups.

I accept the contention

Paul

 

[gunner]

No, but you are suggesting something needs to be legislated on due to the fact it impede communication and undermines the cohesiveness of the community. Hence, a disagreeable prick works as a good analogy

.


How is it ridiculous? You're seemingly suggesting the concern here is integration. Removing the Burqa isn't going to change the fact these people have no interest in integrating








Did you read the article you posted? It's clearly discussing integration:

<<<Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day>>>

<<<He said he was worried the "implications of separateness" and the development of "parallel communities">>>

Chuckles, remind me, what is you're arguing for?

Paul

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Chuckles, remind me, what is you're arguing for?

Paul

Here? That it isn't the states business to force such integration and likely beyond their ability, anyway

 

[Infinite Chaos]

That it's origins were a means to protect women from raiding parties and that now some sects of Islam see it as an essential part of their religion. Not sure why you would view those things as mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure why I'm involved in yet another merry-go-round of circular logic, counter argument and difficult to define position I am debating with but simply because many argue about a true or pure interpretation of their religion - as you point out, (and I stated earlier) it is not a core tenet of islam. I am fairly certain many muslims have stated that their holy book should not be adulterated thus someone now stating a religious basis for face covering can be judged to be proposing an altered state or version of their holy book.

Anyhow. Whatever.

 

[Gardener]

I can't say I'm looking forward to such an affliction:-(
.

Paul

It's not quite an affliction yet,Paul, as we don't argue ALL the time.

It's just that he used to really stand up for his opinions, but is becoming increasingly flexible on the positions he takes. I can't seem hold him to much of a consistant stance any more.

 

[rathi]

That's true, as far as I know. Most of the niqab wearers (I've never seen anyone in an actual burka) are here in Geneva and they are ALL rich Saudi Arabian tourists. I think this vote is like the minaret ban vote, more symbolic than anything else. It's a way of saying "You wanna live here? You do it by our rules." Which in a way makes sense. I mean when we go to their countries we're expected to be respectful of their customs. The least they can do is return the favor. I don't think it should be a law, though.

Why exactly do you have a problem with people wearing face veils? Its oppressive to women for sure, but considering that Switzerland didn't have universal female suffrage until 1990 that seems to fit right in with Swiss governance. Has Switzerland really gone from being the most gender discriminatory country in Europe to championing women's rights?

 

[Arcana XV]

Why exactly do you have a problem with people wearing face veils? Its oppressive to women for sure, but considering that Switzerland didn't have universal female suffrage until 1990 that seems to fit right in with Swiss governance. Has Switzerland really gone from being the most gender discriminatory country in Europe to championing women's rights?

First of all, it's one canton's new law, not a federal law. Second, it has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with the rejection of fundamentalist salafist/wahabist Islam.

 

[rathi]

First of all, it's one canton's new law, not a federal law. Second, it has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with the rejection of fundamentalist salafist/wahabist Islam.

Most people reject Wahabbism because its oppressive to women and promotes religious intolerance. If you don't have a problem with those values, why do you reject Wahhabism so strongly?

 

[Serenity]

That's true, as far as I know. Most of the niqab wearers (I've never seen anyone in an actual burka) are here in Geneva and they are ALL rich Saudi Arabian tourists. I think this vote is like the minaret ban vote, more symbolic than anything else. It's a way of saying "You wanna live here? You do it by our rules." Which in a way makes sense. I mean when we go to their countries we're expected to be respectful of their customs. The least they can do is return the favor. I don't think it should be a law, though.

And therein lies my issues with so many "political activists". All talk and no substance. I have no issues with someone being proactive to support a cause that they believe strongly in but it makes no sense to go so far as to campaign, take something to vote and then bring into law something that is purely symbolic. There are no people who wear niqab in Ticino.

Surely Ghiringhelli would be able to better serve the Community by doing something much more constructive by changing something that actually does impact the people there in a positive way if he is that way inclined.