Forums - Politics Discussion - Antifa Protestors Throw Garbage at Conservatives Eating Breakfast.

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm pretty sure you understand the question.

Are they protesting against the islam "law" that mandates woman to use Burqa or are they protesting against it making harder to identify people that could be criminal?

I would assume they are protesting against the Islamic doctrine. - But they tend to focus their hatred towards the Burqa specifically, either way, does it actually make a difference? They are being hypocrites.
Religious freedom is a founding pillar of this country, it is literally written in the constitution, so whinging about Islam isn't going to get them anywhere.

Wearing whatever-you-desire is also a freedom, if the Prime Minister can get around in public in his budgie smugglers, then people should be entitled to wear a Burqa.

Of course there is a difference, protesting against the obligation of woman to use Burqa to hide their face doesn't contradict they using facial coverage (which I don't think they should, but they probably are ashamed of being seem doing it and/or afraid of being laid off) versus safety reason/recognize because that is what their coverage do.

The religious freedom vs oppresion of women is certainly a divisive situation where it's both right to say islam is antiquate but also that they are free to pursue it as long as it doesn't break any other law.

Someone wanting to use burqa is still different than being a woman that is mandated to use it not of own volition.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Of course there is a difference, protesting against the obligation of woman to use Burqa to hide their face doesn't contradict they using facial coverage (which I don't think they should, but they probably are ashamed of being seem doing it and/or afraid of being laid off) versus safety reason/recognize because that is what their coverage do.

That is just playing with semantics.

They are protesting about the banning of the Burqa, whilst wearing face coverings, they are blatant hypocrites, try and spin it anyway you want, that is the reality.

DonFerrari said:

The religious freedom vs oppresion of women is certainly a divisive situation where it's both right to say islam is antiquate but also that they are free to pursue it as long as it doesn't break any other law.

Islam is a Middle-Eastern Abrahamic religion just like Christianity and Judaism, we have freedom from religion in Australia which is embedded in the Australian constitution.
It needs to be absolutely respected at all levels.
People are entitled to wear whatever they desire in Australia, women are not being forced to wear it due to the law of the land.

DonFerrari said:

Someone wanting to use burqa is still different than being a woman that is mandated to use it not of own volition.

They are not mandated at a legal level.
They believe they have to wear it for religious and/or cultural reasons, not because they are being forced to by the constitution or government, that is the fundamental difference here.
Many women may also convert to Islam, many may convert away... And the changes in head-dress can change accordingly.

Besides, this is the very definition if bigotry (Aka. Intolerance) as many other religions have mandated head-wear as well, yet the far-right tend not to whinge about those.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Of course there is a difference, protesting against the obligation of woman to use Burqa to hide their face doesn't contradict they using facial coverage (which I don't think they should, but they probably are ashamed of being seem doing it and/or afraid of being laid off) versus safety reason/recognize because that is what their coverage do.

That is just playing with semantics.

They are protesting about the banning of the Burqa, whilst wearing face coverings, they are blatant hypocrites, try and spin it anyway you want, that is the reality.

DonFerrari said:

The religious freedom vs oppresion of women is certainly a divisive situation where it's both right to say islam is antiquate but also that they are free to pursue it as long as it doesn't break any other law.

Islam is a Middle-Eastern Abrahamic religion just like Christianity and Judaism, we have freedom from religion in Australia which is embedded in the Australian constitution.
It needs to be absolutely respected at all levels.
People are entitled to wear whatever they desire in Australia, women are not being forced to wear it due to the law of the land.

DonFerrari said:

Someone wanting to use burqa is still different than being a woman that is mandated to use it not of own volition.

They are not mandated at a legal level.
They believe they have to wear it for religious and/or cultural reasons, not because they are being forced to by the constitution or government, that is the fundamental difference here.
Many women may also convert to Islam, many may convert away... And the changes in head-dress can change accordingly.

Besides, this is the very definition if bigotry (Aka. Intolerance) as many other religions have mandated head-wear as well, yet the far-right tend not to whinge about those.

If you want to spin the reason for banning Burqa to put the right wing protestors as hypocrites them we can also claim hypocrisy on the left wing that will demand non-religious state, woman rights being the same of man but would also defend Islam over Christianity. 

Freedom of religion is also embracing Sharia Law, which they uphold over the country Law and that is mandating woman to use burqa even against their will. That may not be the state mandating, but a husband, father, priest equivalent, etc mandating is still a break on that person freedom.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

If you want to spin the reason for banning Burqa to put the right wing protestors as hypocrites them we can also claim hypocrisy on the left wing that will demand non-religious state, woman rights being the same of man but would also defend Islam over Christianity. 

 

Sure. I can call a spade a spade.
Many on the left are hypocrites who would defend Islam over Christianity.
But the far-right are also hypocrites for wanting to ban facial coverings whilst wearing facial coverings.

See. Wasn't that hard, great thing about being more in the center is I can actively criticize both sides of the political divide.

DonFerrari said:

Freedom of religion is also embracing Sharia Law, which they uphold over the country Law and that is mandating woman to use burqa even against their will. That may not be the state mandating, but a husband, father, priest equivalent, etc mandating is still a break on that person freedom.


Sharia Law is a religious law, it doesn't not take priority over the law of the land, aka. Legislated law. That is the reality.
I do work in several emergency service organizations and work closely with police, I can assure you... Regardless of what religion you follow, you break the law, you get punished, that's not religious persecution that goes against freedom of religion either.

So... With that in mind.

1) You are free to follow any religion you desire as per the constitution.
2) You are still obligated to follow the law, regardless of your religion.
3) Religious law is something that can only be applied to oneself, not forcefully on others, just like a dieting "rules" provided it doesn't come into conflict with other laws.

All this whinging about Sharia law is just silly when the countries law is what takes precedent in any legal matters.

Keep in mind that Sharia law is based on their religious writings outlaid in the Quran, allot of those same "rules" are found in the Christian Bible (Such as not being allowed to consume pork in Leviticus) and the Jewish Torah, which makes sense... They are all religions derived from the same source materials with their own spin.

Thus they should all be treated identically, not just socially, but in legislation and political outlets as well.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

If you want to spin the reason for banning Burqa to put the right wing protestors as hypocrites them we can also claim hypocrisy on the left wing that will demand non-religious state, woman rights being the same of man but would also defend Islam over Christianity. 

 

Sure. I can call a spade a spade.
Many on the left are hypocrites who would defend Islam over Christianity.
But the far-right are also hypocrites for wanting to ban facial coverings whilst wearing facial coverings.

See. Wasn't that hard, great thing about being more in the center is I can actively criticize both sides of the political divide.

DonFerrari said:

Freedom of religion is also embracing Sharia Law, which they uphold over the country Law and that is mandating woman to use burqa even against their will. That may not be the state mandating, but a husband, father, priest equivalent, etc mandating is still a break on that person freedom.


Sharia Law is a religious law, it doesn't not take priority over the law of the land, aka. Legislated law. That is the reality.
I do work in several emergency service organizations and work closely with police, I can assure you... Regardless of what religion you follow, you break the law, you get punished, that's not religious persecution that goes against freedom of religion either.

So... With that in mind.

1) You are free to follow any religion you desire as per the constitution.
2) You are still obligated to follow the law, regardless of your religion.
3) Religious law is something that can only be applied to oneself, not forcefully on others, just like a dieting "rules" provided it doesn't come into conflict with other laws.

All this whinging about Sharia law is just silly when the countries law is what takes precedent in any legal matters.

Keep in mind that Sharia law is based on their religious writings outlaid in the Quran, allot of those same "rules" are found in the Christian Bible (Such as not being allowed to consume pork in Leviticus) and the Jewish Torah, which makes sense... They are all religions derived from the same source materials with their own spin.

Thus they should all be treated identically, not just socially, but in legislation and political outlets as well.

I'm right wing and have no problem criticizing right wing, even more on the parts that they are in favor of actively interfering in citizens life (like regulating marriage and being against same sex marriage or polimarriage). And in this case sure you can criticize right wing wanting to ban burqa while using facial coverage (even though I don't see a hypocrisy on this since reasons are quite different).

1) and 2) ok... 3) there are plenty cases of forcing religion on others, just like children being circuncized in jews, or making your child or wife use burqa.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

On the whole Burqa thing and Republicans claiming it is "for women's rights."
Keep in mind, these are the same people who want to take away women's right to abortion.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

DonFerrari said:

I'm right wing and have no problem criticizing right wing, even more on the parts that they are in favor of actively interfering in citizens life (like regulating marriage and being against same sex marriage or polimarriage). And in this case sure you can criticize right wing wanting to ban burqa while using facial coverage (even though I don't see a hypocrisy on this since reasons are quite different).

1) and 2) ok... 3) there are plenty cases of forcing religion on others, just like children being circuncized in jews, or making your child or wife use burqa.

Then we are pretty much agree on everything. (Except the Burqa).
The Hypocrisy is real though on both sides of the political spectrum, people need to call them out on it more often rather than make excuses for "their team".



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm pretty sure you understand the question.

Are they protesting against the islam "law" that mandates woman to use Burqa or are they protesting against it making harder to identify people that could be criminal?

I would assume they are protesting against the Islamic doctrine. - But they tend to focus their hatred towards the Burqa specifically, either way, does it actually make a difference? They are being hypocrites.
Religious freedom is a founding pillar of this country, it is literally written in the constitution, so whinging about Islam isn't going to get them anywhere.

Wearing whatever-you-desire is also a freedom, if the Prime Minister can get around in public in his budgie smugglers, then people should be entitled to wear a Burqa.

Burgas aren't meant to hide their identity during crimes or to keep from being fired. It's not comparable to antifa masks or masks in general. It covers the whole body most of the the time and it could be seen as oppressive to women considering it's origins and function.  It's meant to cover women's femininity. It could also be seen as hypocritical to support something like burqas and feminism. If the alt-right of Australia oppose antifa wearing masks yet they wear them just as much then that's good enough proof of them being hypocritical.



Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm right wing and have no problem criticizing right wing, even more on the parts that they are in favor of actively interfering in citizens life (like regulating marriage and being against same sex marriage or polimarriage). And in this case sure you can criticize right wing wanting to ban burqa while using facial coverage (even though I don't see a hypocrisy on this since reasons are quite different).

1) and 2) ok... 3) there are plenty cases of forcing religion on others, just like children being circuncized in jews, or making your child or wife use burqa.

Then we are pretty much agree on everything. (Except the Burqa).
The Hypocrisy is real though on both sides of the political spectrum, people need to call them out on it more often rather than make excuses for "their team".

I'm sure there are plenty hypocrisy within right wing movements, I just disagree on the Burqa case because of the reason they are against, but that in the end is very pointless disagreement.

Much more relevant, are right wing or antifa doing many violent protests or at least both are generally peacefull?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Jumpin said:
On the whole Burqa thing and Republicans claiming it is "for women's rights."
Keep in mind, these are the same people who want to take away women's right to abortion.

It's not women's right to kill their babies. The right sees the unborn child as a person while the left doesn't. Because the right sees the unborn child as a person, it's life deserves protection even if It's against what the ill-intentioned mother wants. It's ultimately about human rights and when exactly unborn children are protected by those rights. That's the point of contention for both sides. When a pregnant woman is killed, it's counted as two homicides or two accidental deaths. When a pregnant woman uses drugs then the baby dies from it or the unborn baby dies as the result of a diet, there's a bunch of criminal charges held against the woman. Why? Because a unborn baby is considered a person except when a woman wants to abort it.