Whose funeral are they preparing for?
It seems a little early to wear a shroud, when your heart is still beating?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I support not allowing someone to pass through airport security in a burqa. I can’t wear a sweater without being asked to remove it.
But as objectionable as some might find the burqa, we can not, in a free society, prohibit someone from wearing one outside of an airport. It’s simply their right.
“Canadians are found to be the “most tolerant people in the developed world.”
Well that’s a good thing then isn’t it?
So what exactly is your point?
Seriously, Davenport the burqa would kill the French fashion industry!
BTW, what do tolerant Canadians have to do with protecting the French fashion industry?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Geez that slut with the gold leaf is just asking for it.
The problem with burquas is that those who wear them do not, for the most part, do so out of free will, even if they so claim.
Because their owner will beat the shiite out of them if they say otherwise.
So, yes, a ban on burquas is offensive to our traditions of personal liberty. But the the practice by some islamists of forcing their womenfolk to wear such degrading garments is even more offensive to our traditions of personal liberty. I’ll go with the lesser evil.
I’m confused. Is that a picture of a family reunion or is it like those Chinese terra cotta warriors that haven’t fossilized yet?
Re “Finally a Reason to Admire the French.”
Didn’t they teach the English how to go from breeding to making love?
Actually, I’m not sure that this is a reason to admire the French. One could say, charitably, that this at least represents a symbolic public stand against an aggressive totalitarian movement within a European secular country; at least they are standing up in a small way, unlike the dhimmi governments in other European countries.
On the other hand, real stand-up behaviour by a government would involve dealing with out of control immigration of populations antithetical to what used to be considered European culture and values, and seditious (if not outright treasonous) behaviour on the part of islamists, most of whom are not women.
Also I suspect the enforcement of this law will be uneven and timid at best.
Notre petit general, ou est tu?
No wonder these people embrace death.
gordinkneehill:
The same point occurred to me. However when it comes to our freedoms it is not government’s place to second guess our motives for exercising them.
At any rate, a Canadian law similar to the French one would either require a “nonwithstanding” clause (meaning the law would not be permanent without regular renewal) or be subject to a Charter challenge (perhaps on religious grounds).
I thought it was their Camembert.
Canadian Tire sells burkas. Except they got the labelling wrong. They have them displayed as ‘one man ice fishing tents’.
Something is totally wrong with a “religion” that want to keep their women shrouded under the guise of “modesty”, yet their spiritual leaders have put out a sheep shagging ediquette handbook for that lonely jihadist when he’s out riding the range far from home and his shrouded slave: http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1516/26
It isn’t the proper role of government to discriminate against people within its boundaries. In free societies, that right falls to citizens in exercising property rights and free speech. However, since immigration has become a statist role, the state must assume responsibility for importing people more interested in colonizing than assimilation. One could therefore argue that actions such as the burqa ban are justified even though they will fail in fending-off growing Islamic cultural dominance. Civil war, Western submission or Islamic reformation are the only foreseeable outcomes. The French government has chosen the civil war option by firing the first volley of what will simply reinforce Islamic intransigence.
Posted by: Davenport at April 12, 2011 11:56 AM “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last”
-Churchill-
I reckon that’s you, dhimmiport.
I have no issue with muslims wearing this type of getup, in whatever despotic and religiously fanatic country from whence they came. At the least women wearing this garb must be banned from driving, wearing same in court and passing through airport security, and if davenport and the rest of the moronic left don’t like it… why, I guess that’s hard cheese.
Muslim women should be encouraged not to wear this wardrobe in public, as it’s more a clannish thing than a muslim dictate, so say the experts. Nothing says “scr3w you, Canada” more than apparel such as this; it’s incompatible with the West. Use of the burka is encouraged by misogynistic husbands and family and oppresses women; where oh where are the SOWs and other feminist hypocrites who should be screaming against paternalistic laws that prevent a woman from feeling sunlight on her face?
Maybe I’m just hopelessly naive. But if I were moving to a country that I was going to call my new home, I’d try my hardest to learn about that country’s customs, culture, and – gasp – even wardrobe. If it was someplace in the mideast, I guess my daughters, if I had any, and my wife would be fitted for whatever the socially acceptable clothing was in that part of the world, and they’d better learn the country’s acceptable behavior for women, and fast. I’d even – horror of horrors! – try my best to live my life as a german, or a swede, or even a jordanian, rather than expect their country to be more like canada to appease me.
I guess that idea’s rather foreign in our own country, isn’t it?
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
Ah, France, thank you. Give it a hundred years and the descendants of those women will be singing your praises.
The photo reminded me of the Statue of Liberty and so aptly represents the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
If I was in the middle of a sandstorm I might prefer to cover myself like that, but away from the desert, what possible excuse but domination can there be for such a garb?
We wouldnot welcome Charlie Manson and his murder cult into Canada and allocate Multicult Funding to Charlie. Why do we welcome the Moslem Murder Cult, that bombs, mutilates, hacks and stones 3-500 innocent people each month 24/7/365 all over the world. This is not a religion. It is simply a murder cult.
Taliban Jack’s background props for his pre-debate interview tonight…
“who wear them do not, for the most part, do so out of free will”
Of course they don’t. No woman in history has ever been thrilled to show up somewhere to find that another woman is wearing the exact same outfit.
Actually the pic would make a great indoor range target. You could hardly miss!
Funny thing is, I think we’re going about this coverin’ your mug thing all the wrong way. There’s a far better way than outlawing it.
You want to walk around looking like a bran bag? Go ahead!
But, no facey, no servy.
I won’t take your cheque or your credit card, I won’t allow you to drive with your mug covered, I won’t let you on an airplane, etc.
All we need, is the right to say no.
Posted by: Kathryn at April 12, 2011 1:32 PM
hahahahaha!!!
That was great.
mhb
“a reason to admire the French”
Actually as usual they are just trying to be different; it’s nothing personal or logical in any way.
French, difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Looks like Freedom to me to Davenport; Run along now your mommy and daddy Benny and Joon are looking for ya.
It seems to me that by even having this argument we’ve already conceded the larger issue. There’s simply no way any nation that claims to value individual freedoms can start outlawing certain modes of dress; Law of Unintended Consequences anyone?
What we can and should be doing is simply cutting off immigration from parts of the world that are not culturally and politically similar to our own, and/or examining individual immigration claimants very closely with no qualms about yanking their visa if they show no signs of trying to assimilate.
France expels visiting nuns – shuts down Dominican monastery – “conspicuous” religious outfits cited as reason.
At least these are IN France.
Daniel – we outlaw going naked in public.
(And there’s no reason we can’t do both.)
Burqas are bad for vitmin D production, which would lead to bone loss, decalcification…they should be banned as a serious health issue.
Hypovitaminosis D is a deficiency of Vitamin D. It can result from: inadequate nutritional intake of vitamin D coupled with inadequate sunlight exposure (in particular sunlight with adequate ultra violet B rays), disorders that limit vitamin D absorption, and conditions that impair the conversion of vitamin D into active metabolites including certain liver, kidney, and hereditary disorders.[1] Deficiency results in impaired bone mineralization and leads to bone softening diseases including rickets in children and osteomalacia and osteoporosis in adults.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Banning them won’t work, that’ll just martry the fanatics who are already Wahhabi/Salafists fanatics. Stop allowing Muslims who wear the Burka into Canada on the grounds their fanatical religious beliefs are not compatable with our civilized society ala gender equality and liberaty for all.
Shrouded bodies = creepy people.
Just another variation of zombies.
The frickin’ English banned the kilt after Culloden, and for less reason. Say what you want about the Jacobites, -they- didn’t blow up parts of London, and they didn’t shoot from behind women and children.
You want to wear a tent, stay in the desert. Frogs finally grew a pair. Probably getting tired of watching their wee little cars get burnt up every weekend.
Well, call it what you want. But, this is a direct attempt to piss off the Muslim population in France.
I got no problem with it.
,
Davenport, “tolerance” is not innately virtuous; whether it is a good or not depends entirely on what is being tolerated.
Ann Coulter’s mother died two years ago. The column she wrote about it included this paragraph: “She had a rare combination of being completely moral and completely nonjudgmental at the same time — the exact opposite of liberals who have absolutely no morals and yet are ferociously judgmental. You could tell Mother anything, get good counsel and not end up feeling worse about yourself.”
In my experience this is generally the way of things.
The Burqua is a slave outfit (and not the hot Princess Leia one you geeks). We do not permit slavery in the civilized West. I have no interest in being “tolerant” towards slavery and misogyny and barbarism.
Ok, photoshoppers, here’s your assignment: we need a “Guy Fawkes” mask on one of them bag ladies…
Too little, much too late.
Kate;
Actually, going half-naked in public is legal for both men and women. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled it legal for women to be topless in public some years ago. The ruling is taken as reference to apply across Canada.
(Of course, thousands of men marched in protest at the time.)
There should be a legal exemption for women going topless or only wearing a niqab while sunbathing at the beach. At least so they can absorb enough sunlight to produce adequate vitamin D. Neither gender identification and nor age would be a problem.
What about naked, but with a face covering?
Phantom – you see that as a surpression of national identity; I see it as the first instance of the rights of men proudly to wear skirts being infringed upon. And yet the guys who banned said skirts were sporting such nifty wig and stockings ensembles themselves. It’s a puzzler.
Everytime we see one of these imbeciles we should say Trick or Treat.
Now there’s a sexy shot.
I bet underneath all them clothes they’re buck naked.
Funny thing is, I think we’re going about this coverin’ your mug thing all the wrong way. There’s a far better way than outlawing it.
You want to walk around looking like a bran bag? Go ahead!
But, no facey, no servy.
I won’t take your cheque or your credit card, I won’t allow you to drive with your mug covered, I won’t let you on an airplane, etc.
All we need, is the right to say no.
Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at April 12, 2011 1:49 PM
—————————————————————————————————-
My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!!!
(And of course Bonnie Prince Charlie dressed up as Flora MacDonald’s maid…)
Really, I want to see this here. They are building a new mosque next to the Islamic daycare blocks from my place and, while I’ve yet to see the full tent-outfit, I am encountering desert maidens with their faces draped in the local drugstore and such. I can stomach the head coverings but this is too much.
The issue, as far as I know—and it’s apparently written that way in the French law—has nothing to do with costume: it has to do with the face being covered in public places, which has been declared illegal—quite rightly, IMO.
Are people allowed to walk into a bank with a face covering? What about one’s doctor, about to perform an operation, or one’s nurse about to administer vital medication? Or what about picking up a child at day care or school? There are very strict rules about who’s allowed to pick up a child. What if the worker/teacher releases a child to the wrong person? How about getting on a plane? One has to almost provide finger prints these days to prove that the person holding the ticket is the one whose name is on it. A passport with someone’s face covered won’t be much use, will it? ’Same with a driver’s license. Or how about trying to identify a victim or criminal in an investigation? The list goes on and on. It’s the face covering that’s outlawed, not the bag.
If women want to look like a sack, that’s their business, but to make themselves incognito does not jibe with being a citizen in a free society. And, if these women and their menfolk don’t like the “no face coverings in public” rule, let them go back to where they came from. When Westerners go the Middle East—IF they’re allowed in—the Muslims demand that we follow their rules. What idiots we are to bend to their every demand, while they treat democratic countries and their citizens with contempt—both in the ME and in our own countries! WHEN are we going to smarten up and tell these spoiled brat/bullies to go fly a kite?
I’m confused. Is that a picture of a family reunion or is it like those Chinese terra cotta warriors that haven’t fossilized yet?
Posted by: Speedy at April 12, 2011 12:19 PM
Fifty!
Well, I see that Daniel Pipes disagrees with me: I take that seriously! So, maybe along with the face covering, the bag should also be outlawed.
Re Faye Dunaway’s hoodie, sun glasses, and surgical mask: under certain circumstances, officials could ask her to remove them, e.g., at the scene of an accident or when boarding a plane. She’d have no legal protection to say no. But, for burqa’ed, Muslim women, isn’t it against their religion for unrelated males to see their faces? Getting them to remove their coverings would probably require a court order.
The new French law, disallowing face covering in public, is going to be VERY difficult to enforce and is, indeed, probably too little, too late. But, it’s a start in letting this arrogant and pushy group of malcontents know that it’s not always going to be their way, or else . . . I hope!
What exactly do we tolerate, Davenport? Ignorance? The fatalistic idea that all cultures- even ones that hold women, Jews and other religious minorities to be inferior- are equal? Canadians aren’t “tolerant”. They are lazy. Ask them how they would feel about curry smells or having another Caledonia in their backyard. Remember- this is the same country wherein an anglophone can go into Quebec and rudely yell at the service department to speak to them in English, likewise a francophone can have a monopoly over ever public position and an allophone can learn neither of the official languages because some jackanapes supports his right to be coddled and/or marginalised. How is that for “tolerant” or “multicultural”? Canadians are “tolerant” insofar as they can have pad thai with their lily white friends and murmur how “open” they are.
The French are doing things in baby steps. Ban the burqa. Then ban cordoning off streets for daily prayers. Go to your house of worship to pray, not block off a public road.
O.K., Amen!
Ahhh.. Smell the air!
French cars burning in the summer time.
–
France and the rest of Europe spent decades getting rid of that Jewish scourge,
now take a look at what has filled the vacuum.
Jews were productive, patriotic,
and you knew what they looked like when they walked into a bank..
Whose funeral are they preparing for?
It seems a little early to wear a shroud, when your heart is still beating?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I support not allowing someone to pass through airport security in a burqa. I can’t wear a sweater without being asked to remove it.
But as objectionable as some might find the burqa, we can not, in a free society, prohibit someone from wearing one outside of an airport. It’s simply their right.
Is that the ‘Slutwalk’ that took place in Toronto?
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2011/04/06/17901206.html
In other news, despite SDA’s best efforts, Canadians are found to be the “most tolerant people in the developed world.”
In other news, despite SDA’s best efforts, Canadians are found to be the “most tolerant people in the developed world.”
“Canadians are found to be the “most tolerant people in the developed world.”
Well that’s a good thing then isn’t it?
So what exactly is your point?
Seriously, Davenport the burqa would kill the French fashion industry!
BTW, what do tolerant Canadians have to do with protecting the French fashion industry?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Geez that slut with the gold leaf is just asking for it.
The problem with burquas is that those who wear them do not, for the most part, do so out of free will, even if they so claim.
Because their owner will beat the shiite out of them if they say otherwise.
So, yes, a ban on burquas is offensive to our traditions of personal liberty. But the the practice by some islamists of forcing their womenfolk to wear such degrading garments is even more offensive to our traditions of personal liberty. I’ll go with the lesser evil.
I’m confused. Is that a picture of a family reunion or is it like those Chinese terra cotta warriors that haven’t fossilized yet?
Re “Finally a Reason to Admire the French.”
Didn’t they teach the English how to go from breeding to making love?
Actually, I’m not sure that this is a reason to admire the French. One could say, charitably, that this at least represents a symbolic public stand against an aggressive totalitarian movement within a European secular country; at least they are standing up in a small way, unlike the dhimmi governments in other European countries.
On the other hand, real stand-up behaviour by a government would involve dealing with out of control immigration of populations antithetical to what used to be considered European culture and values, and seditious (if not outright treasonous) behaviour on the part of islamists, most of whom are not women.
Also I suspect the enforcement of this law will be uneven and timid at best.
Notre petit general, ou est tu?
No wonder these people embrace death.
gordinkneehill:
The same point occurred to me. However when it comes to our freedoms it is not government’s place to second guess our motives for exercising them.
At any rate, a Canadian law similar to the French one would either require a “nonwithstanding” clause (meaning the law would not be permanent without regular renewal) or be subject to a Charter challenge (perhaps on religious grounds).
I thought it was their Camembert.
Canadian Tire sells burkas. Except they got the labelling wrong. They have them displayed as ‘one man ice fishing tents’.
Something is totally wrong with a “religion” that want to keep their women shrouded under the guise of “modesty”, yet their spiritual leaders have put out a sheep shagging ediquette handbook for that lonely jihadist when he’s out riding the range far from home and his shrouded slave:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1516/26
It isn’t the proper role of government to discriminate against people within its boundaries. In free societies, that right falls to citizens in exercising property rights and free speech. However, since immigration has become a statist role, the state must assume responsibility for importing people more interested in colonizing than assimilation. One could therefore argue that actions such as the burqa ban are justified even though they will fail in fending-off growing Islamic cultural dominance. Civil war, Western submission or Islamic reformation are the only foreseeable outcomes. The French government has chosen the civil war option by firing the first volley of what will simply reinforce Islamic intransigence.
Posted by: Davenport at April 12, 2011 11:56 AM
“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last”
-Churchill-
I reckon that’s you, dhimmiport.
I have no issue with muslims wearing this type of getup, in whatever despotic and religiously fanatic country from whence they came. At the least women wearing this garb must be banned from driving, wearing same in court and passing through airport security, and if davenport and the rest of the moronic left don’t like it… why, I guess that’s hard cheese.
Muslim women should be encouraged not to wear this wardrobe in public, as it’s more a clannish thing than a muslim dictate, so say the experts. Nothing says “scr3w you, Canada” more than apparel such as this; it’s incompatible with the West. Use of the burka is encouraged by misogynistic husbands and family and oppresses women; where oh where are the SOWs and other feminist hypocrites who should be screaming against paternalistic laws that prevent a woman from feeling sunlight on her face?
Maybe I’m just hopelessly naive. But if I were moving to a country that I was going to call my new home, I’d try my hardest to learn about that country’s customs, culture, and – gasp – even wardrobe. If it was someplace in the mideast, I guess my daughters, if I had any, and my wife would be fitted for whatever the socially acceptable clothing was in that part of the world, and they’d better learn the country’s acceptable behavior for women, and fast. I’d even – horror of horrors! – try my best to live my life as a german, or a swede, or even a jordanian, rather than expect their country to be more like canada to appease me.
I guess that idea’s rather foreign in our own country, isn’t it?
mhb23re at gmail d0t calm
Ah, France, thank you. Give it a hundred years and the descendants of those women will be singing your praises.
The photo reminded me of the Statue of Liberty and so aptly represents the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
If I was in the middle of a sandstorm I might prefer to cover myself like that, but away from the desert, what possible excuse but domination can there be for such a garb?
We wouldnot welcome Charlie Manson and his murder cult into Canada and allocate Multicult Funding to Charlie. Why do we welcome the Moslem Murder Cult, that bombs, mutilates, hacks and stones 3-500 innocent people each month 24/7/365 all over the world. This is not a religion. It is simply a murder cult.
Taliban Jack’s background props for his pre-debate interview tonight…
“who wear them do not, for the most part, do so out of free will”
Of course they don’t. No woman in history has ever been thrilled to show up somewhere to find that another woman is wearing the exact same outfit.
Actually the pic would make a great indoor range target. You could hardly miss!
Funny thing is, I think we’re going about this coverin’ your mug thing all the wrong way. There’s a far better way than outlawing it.
You want to walk around looking like a bran bag? Go ahead!
But, no facey, no servy.
I won’t take your cheque or your credit card, I won’t allow you to drive with your mug covered, I won’t let you on an airplane, etc.
All we need, is the right to say no.
Posted by: Kathryn at April 12, 2011 1:32 PM
hahahahaha!!!
That was great.
mhb
“a reason to admire the French”
Actually as usual they are just trying to be different; it’s nothing personal or logical in any way.
French, difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Looks like Freedom to me to Davenport; Run along now your mommy and daddy Benny and Joon are looking for ya.
It seems to me that by even having this argument we’ve already conceded the larger issue. There’s simply no way any nation that claims to value individual freedoms can start outlawing certain modes of dress; Law of Unintended Consequences anyone?
What we can and should be doing is simply cutting off immigration from parts of the world that are not culturally and politically similar to our own, and/or examining individual immigration claimants very closely with no qualms about yanking their visa if they show no signs of trying to assimilate.
France expels visiting nuns – shuts down Dominican monastery – “conspicuous” religious outfits cited as reason.
At least these are IN France.
Daniel – we outlaw going naked in public.
(And there’s no reason we can’t do both.)
Burqas are bad for vitmin D production, which would lead to bone loss, decalcification…they should be banned as a serious health issue.
Hypovitaminosis D is a deficiency of Vitamin D. It can result from: inadequate nutritional intake of vitamin D coupled with inadequate sunlight exposure (in particular sunlight with adequate ultra violet B rays), disorders that limit vitamin D absorption, and conditions that impair the conversion of vitamin D into active metabolites including certain liver, kidney, and hereditary disorders.[1] Deficiency results in impaired bone mineralization and leads to bone softening diseases including rickets in children and osteomalacia and osteoporosis in adults.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Banning them won’t work, that’ll just martry the fanatics who are already Wahhabi/Salafists fanatics. Stop allowing Muslims who wear the Burka into Canada on the grounds their fanatical religious beliefs are not compatable with our civilized society ala gender equality and liberaty for all.
Shrouded bodies = creepy people.
Just another variation of zombies.
The frickin’ English banned the kilt after Culloden, and for less reason. Say what you want about the Jacobites, -they- didn’t blow up parts of London, and they didn’t shoot from behind women and children.
You want to wear a tent, stay in the desert. Frogs finally grew a pair. Probably getting tired of watching their wee little cars get burnt up every weekend.
Well, call it what you want. But, this is a direct attempt to piss off the Muslim population in France.
I got no problem with it.
,
Davenport, “tolerance” is not innately virtuous; whether it is a good or not depends entirely on what is being tolerated.
Ann Coulter’s mother died two years ago. The column she wrote about it included this paragraph: “She had a rare combination of being completely moral and completely nonjudgmental at the same time — the exact opposite of liberals who have absolutely no morals and yet are ferociously judgmental.
You could tell Mother anything, get good counsel and not end up feeling worse about yourself.”
In my experience this is generally the way of things.
The Burqua is a slave outfit (and not the hot Princess Leia one you geeks). We do not permit slavery in the civilized West. I have no interest in being “tolerant” towards slavery and misogyny and barbarism.
Ok, photoshoppers, here’s your assignment: we need a “Guy Fawkes” mask on one of them bag ladies…
Too little, much too late.
Kate;
Actually, going half-naked in public is legal for both men and women. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled it legal for women to be topless in public some years ago. The ruling is taken as reference to apply across Canada.
(Of course, thousands of men marched in protest at the time.)
There should be a legal exemption for women going topless or only wearing a niqab while sunbathing at the beach. At least so they can absorb enough sunlight to produce adequate vitamin D. Neither gender identification and nor age would be a problem.
What about naked, but with a face covering?
Phantom – you see that as a surpression of national identity; I see it as the first instance of the rights of men proudly to wear skirts being infringed upon. And yet the guys who banned said skirts were sporting such nifty wig and stockings ensembles themselves. It’s a puzzler.
Everytime we see one of these imbeciles we should say Trick or Treat.
Now there’s a sexy shot.
I bet underneath all them clothes they’re buck naked.
Funny thing is, I think we’re going about this coverin’ your mug thing all the wrong way. There’s a far better way than outlawing it.
You want to walk around looking like a bran bag? Go ahead!
But, no facey, no servy.
I won’t take your cheque or your credit card, I won’t allow you to drive with your mug covered, I won’t let you on an airplane, etc.
All we need, is the right to say no.
Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at April 12, 2011 1:49 PM
—————————————————————————————————-
My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!!!
(And of course Bonnie Prince Charlie dressed up as Flora MacDonald’s maid…)
Really, I want to see this here. They are building a new mosque next to the Islamic daycare blocks from my place and, while I’ve yet to see the full tent-outfit, I am encountering desert maidens with their faces draped in the local drugstore and such. I can stomach the head coverings but this is too much.
The issue, as far as I know—and it’s apparently written that way in the French law—has nothing to do with costume: it has to do with the face being covered in public places, which has been declared illegal—quite rightly, IMO.
Are people allowed to walk into a bank with a face covering? What about one’s doctor, about to perform an operation, or one’s nurse about to administer vital medication? Or what about picking up a child at day care or school? There are very strict rules about who’s allowed to pick up a child. What if the worker/teacher releases a child to the wrong person? How about getting on a plane? One has to almost provide finger prints these days to prove that the person holding the ticket is the one whose name is on it. A passport with someone’s face covered won’t be much use, will it? ’Same with a driver’s license. Or how about trying to identify a victim or criminal in an investigation? The list goes on and on. It’s the face covering that’s outlawed, not the bag.
If women want to look like a sack, that’s their business, but to make themselves incognito does not jibe with being a citizen in a free society. And, if these women and their menfolk don’t like the “no face coverings in public” rule, let them go back to where they came from. When Westerners go the Middle East—IF they’re allowed in—the Muslims demand that we follow their rules. What idiots we are to bend to their every demand, while they treat democratic countries and their citizens with contempt—both in the ME and in our own countries! WHEN are we going to smarten up and tell these spoiled brat/bullies to go fly a kite?
I’m confused. Is that a picture of a family reunion or is it like those Chinese terra cotta warriors that haven’t fossilized yet?
Posted by: Speedy at April 12, 2011 12:19 PM
Fifty!
Well, I see that Daniel Pipes disagrees with me: I take that seriously! So, maybe along with the face covering, the bag should also be outlawed.
Re Faye Dunaway’s hoodie, sun glasses, and surgical mask: under certain circumstances, officials could ask her to remove them, e.g., at the scene of an accident or when boarding a plane. She’d have no legal protection to say no. But, for burqa’ed, Muslim women, isn’t it against their religion for unrelated males to see their faces? Getting them to remove their coverings would probably require a court order.
The new French law, disallowing face covering in public, is going to be VERY difficult to enforce and is, indeed, probably too little, too late. But, it’s a start in letting this arrogant and pushy group of malcontents know that it’s not always going to be their way, or else . . . I hope!
What exactly do we tolerate, Davenport? Ignorance? The fatalistic idea that all cultures- even ones that hold women, Jews and other religious minorities to be inferior- are equal? Canadians aren’t “tolerant”. They are lazy. Ask them how they would feel about curry smells or having another Caledonia in their backyard. Remember- this is the same country wherein an anglophone can go into Quebec and rudely yell at the service department to speak to them in English, likewise a francophone can have a monopoly over ever public position and an allophone can learn neither of the official languages because some jackanapes supports his right to be coddled and/or marginalised. How is that for “tolerant” or “multicultural”? Canadians are “tolerant” insofar as they can have pad thai with their lily white friends and murmur how “open” they are.
The French are doing things in baby steps. Ban the burqa. Then ban cordoning off streets for daily prayers. Go to your house of worship to pray, not block off a public road.
O.K., Amen!
Ahhh.. Smell the air!
French cars burning in the summer time.
–
France and the rest of Europe spent decades getting rid of that Jewish scourge,
now take a look at what has filled the vacuum.
Jews were productive, patriotic,
and you knew what they looked like when they walked into a bank..