By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ban the Burqa

Kasz216 on 05 April 2010
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, you keep claiming almost no one wears a Burqa yet this would be a huge strike against the muslims invading your country trying to turn it into a muslim state. So uh, which is it?

With every group of immigrants there are going to in fact be a few crazy extremists. Hell if I tried hard enough I'm sure i could find websites about Mexican immigrants wanting to turn part of the USA into Mexico. Black people wanting their own black continent and white people from California and or Alaska that want to be free from the US Government.

Well Alaska anyway... California somehow screwed up their state so bad they rely on government money.

 

Also, I'd rather support intolerant people who are mad about laws being brought against them, then intolerant people who make intolerant laws.

I'll bring up the example of the ACLU.  The American Civil Liberties Union.  A group who fights for minority rights more often then not free of charge.

They are obviously largely minority based... who's cases do they often take up?   The KKK.  Often times when the KKK is discrimintated against... it's the ACLU defending their rights.  Often with a black lawyer no less.

Most European countries score better on "murder per capita' then the United states of America. And with better I mean less murders of course. And normal crime rates as well. Look up your statistics again. 

 

And I never said a lot of people wanted to turn it into a Muslim state. It's a very small group that recently got in the media because they disturbed a reading in a university.

Muslim countries(which are mostly extremist countries) don't have intolerant laws right? Yet you still support the extremist Muslims here. 

You didn't read my post correctly there.

The areas with stricter gun laws... IN THE UNITED STATES.  Have higher murder and crime rates then areas with less gun restrictions.

Also, here is the sad part.  You were very against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Yet your point of view is very much what allowed those wars to happen.

"You still support extremist muslims" is straight out of the Neo-cons "If you disagree with us you are supporting terrorists" book.  The same distrust and negativity you are showing is the same attitude many people had after 9/11 that allowed those wars to happen.

If another country has intolerant laws to immigrants of my people, I am not justified to have intolerant laws against their people.  That simply makes me just as bad as the people I condemn.  That makes ME the hypocrit.

I'm not supporting "The muslim extremists".  I'm supporting civil rights, and the ability to make positive change rather then simply try and hide the problem allowing it to fester.

I'm not against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm against the fact that people use religion as an excuse to justify war. And face it, USA doesn't care if there are countries with dictators in power. As long as they don't do something that would hurt the USA that is. I'm just using USA as an example now, the same goes for a lot of other countries as well. 9/11 was an excuse to go to war by the way.

And what I mean is:

Only extremist Muslims wear burqa's

What would be the best law for them? The Sharia.

What law is intolerant? The Sharia.

If you support civil rights I'm going to assume you're against the sharia. 

Ask any Muslim girl that isn't indoctrinated if they want to wear a burqa. You might get some "yes" answers, but you'll get a hell of a lot more "no" as an answer.

Yeah that was my point.  9/11 was an excuse to go to war.  Which the people supported due to a sudden case of neoconservative fear of extremist muslims.

Am i against the Sharia?  Yeah sure.  Is that a law of Belgium?  Not since I last checked.  If it was, i'd be for it's repeal.

The fact that even some would say yes means something.  Though hell, even a right nobody chooses to use should be perserved.  For example, the right to use underwear as a hat.  Even if the only people who do that are forced to by bullys.  It shouldn't be outlawed.

Sharia can be a national, regional or family law. In the case of Belgium it will be a law that some Muslim families hold dear.

By the way I'm not for this law, but I'm also not against it. I've never seen someone wearing a burqa, so it doesn't matter to me. I just don't believe this will have a negative impact on society. Just for the fact that extremist Muslims are already out of Belgians society because it goes against a lot of things they believe in. Most of them wish not to participate in it and they only have Muslim friends/family. 

That said, there aren't really a lot of extremist Muslims here.

Sociologists would disagree with you.  One of the biggest problems with laws like this is that they make people think things have gotten better, when they haven't.  So people get complacent.  For example, when you ban the swastika people thing Neo Nazi groups have shrunken... when in reality they've simply been forced to go more underground and you can't identitfy them eaisly.  If someone hates my country or is a racist or whatever, i'd must rather them have a t-shirt so I can socially sanction them.

But politicians will not agree with you, at least the ones in Belgium. You do know it would be suicide for your political career in Belgium if you tried to unban swastika's? It's an impossible thing to do actually. I shouldn't actually say swastika's as only the german one is banned(I think). Those boedhist swastika's have a slightly different design if I'm not mistaken.

We have a zero tolerance policy at the moment in some parts of Brussels and it's working. Crime rates went down in Brussels by a huge percentage. Just to give an example as to why you don't need to tolerate everything.  

Unbanning the German swastika(we call it a "Hakenkruis") would have a negative impact on society in Europe. I can tell you that and a lot of sociologists would agree. Perhaps not in the USA, but I can't make a judgement about that as I don't live there.

Ps: What would happen if I wore a t-shirt that said "Fuck the USA" in the USA? I'd probably get beat up eventually. Hurray for society!

 

Yes, cause Polticians know better then the actual people who study sociology.  How would unbanning a swastika negativly effect Belgium.  I'd like to know... espiecally from a sociologist if you actually got ones opinion.

 

As for your PS... yeah that's the point.  If you wore a shirt that had a big swastika on it in the US... chances are people would curse at you, swear at you, say negative things and maybe even beat you up.

That's actually the ENTIRE point.  Social Sanctions.  These show the people that EVERYBODY is against your behavior rather then i just being politcians or that people believe that way soley because of politicans.  

You do know we need to actually prevent violence from happening right? If someone beats you up for wearing a swastika t-shirt(and if it's not illegal) then you could just sue them. Hey, I just said the favorite words of the USA  

 

It would affect society negative. The Jews in Antwerp would strike destroying the diamond market in Antwerp. All the socialist tree huggers would riot. And I can tell you one thing. We have a lot of socialist/communist tree huggers

They riot every week at the moment against NSV, an extreme right wing student sorority(they riot because the university made NSV an official sorority). Unban swastika's and hell breaks lose. Have you actually ever been to Belgium? I've actually been arrested once together with 300 tree huggers just because I was sitting on a city square and those stupid communists happened to be there as well trying to beat up members of NSV.

That said, Federalism rules in Belgium. Good luck changing something big here. It takes ages.


Once again those negatives are positives, protest against the bad groups and boycott, maybe even strike. It forces them too chnge,

Around the Network
draik on 05 April 2010

Stop quoting each other, it's getting too long.

Kasz, the swastika ban is still a law from just after WWII. Unlike the US, Nazi's were on our soil. If it was correct to ban it then is irrelevant now.

Unbanning it now would piss off the large Jewish community that lives Antwerp. We don't want to piss them of, they control a large portion of the diamond industry in Antwerp.

More than 80% of the world consumption of rough, polished and industrial diamonds passes through Antwerp. Why take the risk, it's not on the top 10 of things do to of the governemnt. And can you blame them? Nobody is asking for the ban to be reversed, so again why take the risk?

The law is symbol, and it's not like the law does anything, so extremist can't use the swastika on campaign posters. Whoopiedoo, that's about it. It isn't blurred out in documentaries, movies, etc. Hell, Mein Kampf is for sale in Belgium.



 

Kasz216 on 05 April 2010
draik said:

Stop quoting each other, it's getting too long.

Kasz, the swastika ban is still a law from just after WWII. Unlike the US, Nazi's were on our soil. If it was correct to ban it then is irrelevant now.

Unbanning it now would piss off the large Jewish community that lives Antwerp. We don't want to piss them of, they control a large portion of the diamond industry in Antwerp.

More than 80% of the world consumption of rough, polished and industrial diamonds passes through Antwerp. Why take the risk, it's not on the top 10 of things do to of the governemnt. And can you blame them? Nobody is asking for the ban to be reversed, so again why take the risk?

The law is symbol, and it's not like the law does anything, so extremist can't use the swastika on campaign posters. Whoopiedoo, that's about it. It isn't blurred out in documentaries, movies, etc. Hell, Mein Kampf is for sale in Belgium.

Which just points out the silliness of the ban itself.  Even unpopular rights should be protected... even silly rights.  It's the only way to make sure everyones rights will be perserved.



Samus Aran on 06 April 2010

"Once again those negatives are positives, protest against the bad groups and boycott, maybe even strike. It forces them too chnge,"

I fail to see what's good about communists, anarchists and extremist socialists. They're pretty much the only ones that riot against NSV. Everyone else simply doesn't care. For both sides.



Kasz216 on 06 April 2010
Samus Aran said:
"Once again those negatives are positives, protest against the bad groups and boycott, maybe even strike. It forces them too chnge,"

I fail to see what's good about communists, anarchists and extremist socialists. They're pretty much the only ones that riot against NSV. Everyone else simply doesn't care. For both sides.

Few people would care when the law is repealed, but how would they act when people started using the Swastikas... that's the point.