France Burqa ban

[eFestivals]

On what grounds could they say that wearing jeans is wrong?

I see you've posed a different format question to what I stated. Your argument is only able to sustain itself by you corrupting the ideas put forwards.

But if you're half as clever as you like to pretend you are, you'll be able to answer me this:-

On what grounds could they say that wearing a veil is ALWAYS wrong?

[eFestivals]

That's democracy for you

no, that's minority persecution for you.

[worm]

Many facets of it are though unfortunately.

[worm]

On what grounds could they say that wearing a veil is ALWAYS wrong?

[eFestivals]

They aren't. They're picking on public displays of sexism.

They aren't? You're right, there's no public displays of sexism within Christianity.

Except of course until recently no female vicars for CoE ... tho that still applies for the left-footers. And no female bishops for either.

But those things aren't public displays of sexism, are they?

And they don't garner the full support in law of just about every (and quite possibly all, I'm not sure) state in Europe for their public displays of sexism, do they?

FFS. Moron.

Plain and simple, this French law is persecution of a particular religion, only because it makes morons of all sorts feel better about themselves.

If those morons want to smarten up, the only way out of their stupidity is thru a hugely greater amount of consistency than they are managing with their views about this.

[worm]

no, that's minority persecution for you.

[eFestivals]

On the grounds that it symbolises women being lesser than men. I've already said this.

that's merely your interpretation of it, from applying one particular reason for its use and claiming that use is universal when it's not.

On what grounds is wearing jeans wrong?

Just as with a Muslim veil, it depends entirely on the reasons for the wearing.

Anyone with half a brain could have worked that one out.

[eFestivals]

A democratic persecution of a minority.

which of course makes it definitively right, eh?

Which of course means that the racism and homophobia that used to exist in law was right and a good thing.

FFS.

[worm]

Neil going off on one......

Edited April 12, 2011 by worm

[worm]

that's merely your interpretation of it, from applying one particular reason for its use and claiming that use is universal when it's not.

Edited April 12, 2011 by worm

[worm]

If it wasn't for their secular stance, they wouldn't have banned it

[worm]

has worm said it's right?

[worm]

it isn't?

so it is...

[eFestivals]

The banning of the Burqua is based on the grounds of sexism, not religion. They're allowed to practice every other aspect of their religion that isn't sexist.

I'm not interested in your Macheivellian conspiracy theories. I'm only interested in whether this is a justifiable measure or not.

If it's justifiable on those grounds for the veil, then similar anti-sexism measures are justifiable to be applied to other religions too.

Yet they're not being. Why not?

And so it comes down to nothing else but right-wing anti-Islamic nutters getting WAY too much influence about this matter, which affects less than 2,000 people anyway.

And just to remind everyone, I'm 100% anti-religion of all kinds - so it hardly makes me likely to stick up for any religion for religions sake. But it doesn't make me blind to the double-standards operating here, which others are definitely suffering from.

[eFestivals]

Its just the way it is... Perhaps you should suggest an alternative to democracy

I have - the Republic of Neil.

Unfortunately, you'd be on the death list.

[eFestivals]

No,it's the French interpretation of it.

that you've said you fully support.

Not that you being a right-wing nutter to the right of Bush surprises me. I got that within your first couple of days here.

I'll ask again, on what grounds is wearing jeans ever wrong?

Keep changing the question, but it's not hiding the fact that you've avoided answering the question I posed first.

On what grounds is wearing a veil ALWAYS wrong?

[eFestivals]

Emphasising the point that it isn't about religion. They are not going to give a religion special privileges. This much I agree with.

except they do.

Is the Catholic Church exempt from anti-sex discrimination laws in France (just as it is in England)? You bet it is.

[worm]

If it's justifiable on those grounds for the veil, then similar anti-sexism measures are justifiable to be applied to other religions too.

[worm]

Is the Catholic Church exempt from anti-sex discrimination laws in France (just as it is in England)? You bet it is.

[The Nal]

What other religious public displays would you call sexist?

[eFestivals]

Ughh....

In a secular society religion has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, no laws can be made on the basis of a religion. This law isn't. It's based on the grounds that sexism is not to be tolerated in a 'fair and equal' society. They deem the forcing of a woman to wear a Burqa as a representation of their subserviance and inferiority to man intolerable. Ergo, religion has nothing to do with it.

If they come back and say 'but it's my religion to do so', they'll simply say 'I couldn't give a monkeys what religion you have, we're a secular society'.

France has heaps of laws made on the basis of religion, just as the UK does.

The veil ban is no different. The law has been framed to say it's not, but have you seen the list of exemptions for face covering? The law has been framed to say it's not, but was anyone calling for any law like this apart from to stop Muslim women wearing a veil because it offends right-wing sensitivities?

(the bollocks about "subjugation" is something that only got spoken about AFTER the idea of an anti-Muslim veil law had been put forwards by the fascists, to try and garner support for a fascist law).

[worm]

that you've said you fully support.

[eFestivals]

What other religious public displays would you call sexist?

male-only ministers is the very obvious one.

[worm]

The veil ban is no different.

[worm]

male-only ministers is the very obvious one.