Oxymoronic French law on veils raises its head again...
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Democracy isn't about mob rule, it's primary function is to protect innocent minorities and protect the rights of people to practice whatever harmless personal choices they happen to decide upon.
Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
who mentioned mob rule, if there was a strong case to ban t shirts and the majority of uk residents agreed then that is democracy at it's purest form surely?Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
jesta1865 said:
FredClogs said:
Democracy isn't about mob rule, it's primary function is to protect innocent minorities and protect the rights of people to practice whatever harmless personal choices they happen to decide upon.
Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
who mentioned mob rule, if there was a strong case to ban t shirts and the majority of uk residents agreed then that is democracy at it's purest form surely?Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
the tyranny of the majority
there is no strong case for people to be banned from wearing silly costumes
FredClogs said:
Democracy isn't about mob rule, it's primary function is to protect innocent minorities and protect the rights of people to practice whatever harmless personal choices they happen to decide upon.
Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
Those very values you cite, those of a liberal secular state, are those most at risk from a backward intolerant minority such as this.Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand and say "these are the values we believe in and if you are not happy move to Saudi Arabia"
JagLover said:
Those very values you cite, those of a liberal secular state, are those most at risk from a backward intolerant minority such as this.
It seems to me that the intolerant ones are those who are saying they should not be allowed to dress the way they want to. How is "banning things" the value of a liberal, secular, state?
It's very simple, just make the husband wear a pepper pot too and see how long people are keen to keep it.
I'm sure there's a number of women who will tell you having your clit sliced off as a teenager is good and it's my culture and you should respect it your vile racist, but some need protecting from their own stupidity, and if not them, then repeating it with another bunch of little girls ( always the women for some reason huh ? ) from being brought up the same way.
Its too late for the adults who wear a full face veil, the best I can hope for is the mad Islamic schools are banned from demanding kids wear them, but even getting the shameless Guardian readers here to agree with that is hard work.
I'm less PC about saying some aspect of peoples culture are s
t and nasty and have no place in the UK.
I'm sure there's a number of women who will tell you having your clit sliced off as a teenager is good and it's my culture and you should respect it your vile racist, but some need protecting from their own stupidity, and if not them, then repeating it with another bunch of little girls ( always the women for some reason huh ? ) from being brought up the same way.
Its too late for the adults who wear a full face veil, the best I can hope for is the mad Islamic schools are banned from demanding kids wear them, but even getting the shameless Guardian readers here to agree with that is hard work.
I'm less PC about saying some aspect of peoples culture are s
t and nasty and have no place in the UK.Edited by Mr_B on Wednesday 22 October 11:04
gpo746 said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
but the values I believe in involve freedom of choice
if you want the state to have control over your clothing, move to Communist era China
Lolif you want the state to have control over your clothing, move to Communist era China
Your hands must be sore from all the wringing you do and your bleeding heart must be needing a bypass op soon.
ksthey have the right to wear stupid outfits, but I have the right to laugh at them
grumbledoak said:
Countdown said:
How is "banning things" the value of a liberal, secular, state?
There is no paradox or contradiction involved. Murder is banned. FGM is banned. Nudity in public is banned. Covered faces in public should be too.jesta1865 said:
so no one should have to wear protective clothing at all?
Protective clothing is not the same as personal choice to wear what you want. Employers have a duty of care on their employees to make sure that they have adequate clothing and safety equipment.Personally, I'm undecided for people choosing to wear safety equipment when not at work. i.e. I believe that if a Biker chooses not to wear a helmet then it's their choice, but this needs to be balanced by any additional burden to the NHS, welfare state or economy that such a decision brings.
jesta1865 said:
sorry but yes there should be some limits on what people wear in public, people have already used the full on veil etc to commit crimes, if people wanted to fit in with the society they have moved to they would have to concede that perhaps they should remove the veil, not wear a helmet in a shop etc.
And plenty of people commit crime in jeans and t-shirts, so we'll ban those too shall we. A nonsense argument.The society I live in allows people to wear pretty much what they want, so they *are* fitting into what's permissable by society.
jesta1865 said:
the problem is that some parts of our society do want the tail to wag the dog.
The problem is that some parts of our society want to demonise anyone who looks, thinks or acts differently to them.Countdown said:
Yes. Because murder, FGM, and public nudity are exactly the same as the types of clothes you wear. By the same rational we should ban cheese and onion pies.
That word "rational". I don't think it means what you think it means. 
Once more for the very hard of thinking: Murder, FGM, and public nudity are just three examples of the many unrelated things banned in our culture, which remains far more tolerant than any Muslim country. Without paradox or contradiction.
Kermit power said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Society has loads of rules on what people can and can't wear, from motorcyclists wearing crash helmets to public nudity. To stop others being offended or to protect stupid people from themselves. Or in the case of the veil, both. It's not oxymoronic at all.
I'll give you an example of an oxymoron.....religious education!
Where is the law banning people from wearing crash helmets in public?I'll give you an example of an oxymoron.....religious education!
Curtailing personal freedoms is nothing new. We do it on bike helmets, seatbelts, euthanasia and various other things where people have personal choices removed from them.
The veil is all about subjugation of women. Women who say it gives them freedom because they are not judged on their looks have been brainwashed into this nonsense, in exactly the same way that it is always older women who perform FGM on younger women. It doesn't make it right.
Why should men be judged on their looks. Why don't some muslim men choose to wear a full face veil??
It's utter b
ks.Plus it's a health hazard. In northern Europe, there are many cases of Islamic women dressed as ninjas suffering from vitamin D deficiency. The sunlight here isn't like the sunlight in Saudi. You need more exposure to it.
grumbledoak said:
Once more for the very hard of thinking: Murder, FGM, and public nudity are just three examples of the many unrelated things banned in our culture, which remains far more tolerant than any Muslim country. Without paradox or contradiction.
All the neurons may be firing, but not necessarily in the correct order.Let's try again - Do you think murder and FGM are morally equivalent to how a person chooses to dress?
Hugo a Gogo said:
jesta1865 said:
FredClogs said:
Democracy isn't about mob rule, it's primary function is to protect innocent minorities and protect the rights of people to practice whatever harmless personal choices they happen to decide upon.
Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
who mentioned mob rule, if there was a strong case to ban t shirts and the majority of uk residents agreed then that is democracy at it's purest form surely?Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.
It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.
the tyranny of the majority
there is no strong case for people to be banned from wearing silly costumes
Countdown said:
Let's try again - Do you think murder and FGM are morally equivalent to how a person chooses to dress?
Why are you trying to connect the unconnected? Murder and FGM are not morally equivalent to each other. Both are banned. Rightly, in my view, but maybe you think I am just not "progressive" enough.If we accept that we can have good reasons for banning a range of behaviours, we are quite free to add "walking around with your face covered". Yet still be a tolerant culture. Without paradox. Or contradiction. As I said.
tangerine_sedge said:
jesta1865 said:
sorry but yes there should be some limits on what people wear in public, people have already used the full on veil etc to commit crimes, if people wanted to fit in with the society they have moved to they would have to concede that perhaps they should remove the veil, not wear a helmet in a shop etc.
And plenty of people commit crime in jeans and t-shirts, so we'll ban those too shall we. A nonsense argument.The society I live in allows people to wear pretty much what they want, so they *are* fitting into what's permissable by society.
tangerine_sedge said:
jesta1865 said:
the problem is that some parts of our society do want the tail to wag the dog.
The problem is that some parts of our society want to demonise anyone who looks, thinks or acts differently to them.this is still a democratic country and we are allowed to have it run the way we want, if that upsets the minority, then sorry but that's the way it is. lots of stuff annoys me in this country, but as i am in a minority for most of it, i won't affect change till i convince enough people to side with me.
as for demonising anyone who thinks or acts differently, what do you think isis are doing and want to do to the rest of the world?
grumbledoak said:
That word "rational". I don't think it means what you think it means.
Once more for the very hard of thinking: Murder, FGM, and public nudity are just three examples of the many unrelated things banned in our culture, which remains far more tolerant than any Muslim country. Without paradox or contradiction.
That's because Murder and FGM impact a 3rd party who does not normally have a choice in the matter. They are rightly banned for this reason. To compare them to wearing a veil is patently absurd.Once more for the very hard of thinking: Murder, FGM, and public nudity are just three examples of the many unrelated things banned in our culture, which remains far more tolerant than any Muslim country. Without paradox or contradiction.
Public nudity is an interesting one, as this is the closest comparison to wearing a vail. Should public nudity (when not sexually motivated) be a crime? I think it comes down to the offence caused to 3rd parties. i.e. what impact has there been to the 3rd party (who has no choice)? This is obvioulsy a sliding scale of 'offense'. My feeling is that public nudity is at one end, and wearing a veil is at the other.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff