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

Forums - General - Switzerland bans minarets.

NKAJ on 03 December 2009
draik said:
Lostplanet22 said:

Switzerland is very proud on his unique towns it is that what also attracts many tourists 'that typical swizz feeling'.

I can understand why allowing minarets would hurt those towns look and let the typical Swizz feeling go away for his inhabitants.

Good that Switzerland let his citizens choose this is a win for democracy. Many people in other cities saw their towns change without the ability to vote about it.

I tell ya Europe is getting doomed if this continue.  An Dutch politician wants to ban the Koran, France and belgium(part of) don't allow scarfs on schools, Swizz doing this,  An Arabian Europe leaque that wants to stop the trade with USA and a law where all European children on school should atleast get one year Arabic etc.

A civil war is coming I tell ya.

I'll only reply to that, don't care about the rest of the discussion.

Scarfs are banned in Belgian Schools, Belgian STATE schools. And not only scarfs, but crosses, red dot Indian (don't mean to offend, I just don't know the actual word) etc.  as well.

It is banned because our government considers STATE schools as a neutral ground with no place for religion outside the optional "Religion courses".

You can always go to private schools/catholic schools/STEINER schools/etc.


sorry not being racist but the bolded part made me think of a indian as a cod gun and red dot is one of the attachments



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
stof on 03 December 2009
Kasz216 said:

A Burkha is a piece of clothing.  No more.

A ban against it is both bigotred and poorly thought out...

and infact is against womens rights.

Most women's groups actually understand this...

Those that do not are thinking irrationally about the subject from a specifically western view.

Once again stof.  I ask you.  What does the Burkha Ban due?

In what way does it liberate women?

It doesn't.


All it does is subsitute tyrnanny from a small subset of those people who choose to wear a burka with the tyranny of the government telling the entire group that wants to wear it that they can't.  It replaces tyranny of what?  10% with 100% tyranny.

Because "the western government knows best."

You don't beat a Burkha via a ban, because Burkha isn't repressing women.  It's simply a sign of opression for SOME women.  It's like trying to solve a fire by creating materials that are flamable but don't produce smoke.  It fixes nothing and does nothing but cause more problems.

I won't make the security/identity argument, because it, because that's just an easy way out, but I think our main disagreement comes from your statement that "A Burkha is a piece of clothing. No more."

But it's really not just clothes. While I don't deny the symbolic nature of female subjugation behind it, The Burka is a physically oppressive and isolating cage. A hot as hell tent that doesn't even let you really see where you're going. 

A hijab is a piece of clothing, and I don't see anyone saying we should ban that. "Actually Stof, the Hijab is heavily restricted in France, Belgium, Tunisia, Moroco and Turkey"... Well yeah, but I don't agree with that. Because I have no problem with simple expression of religion. Speaking of religious expression, that group I mentioned that wants Canada to ban the Burkha wasn't a group of western feminists, it was the Canadian Muslim Congress. Partly male, Partly female, All Muslim. You should check out their webpage, some good stuff there (thanks for those links you sent me by the way)

You ask me how a Burka ban would help anyone, and then answer that it wouldn't. You make two analogies, the flammable materials and the wife beaters. Funny that you should mention wife beaters, because I can think of no better way to hide the actions of a wife beater than to completely hide a beaten wife from head to tow in a lovely black eye covering Burkha, but I know that was just for analogy sake. 

As for the flammable materials, you're saying that the Burkha is the smoke and the extremist induced subjugation and oppression of somen is the fire. I'd disagree. I'd say the Burkha is very much a fire, and that extemism is a match. While we'd all like to put the matches away, we should also put out the fires. How does a burkha ban help a woman? it takes her out of this.

 

To sum up, banning things for fear of the symbolism behind them: bad

Banning things that actually affect and oppress: not so bad, though still should be taken on a case by case bases.

 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Kasz216 on 03 December 2009

Once again... that's not a way to fix anything.

There are tons of outfits just like a Burqa.

It's not illegal for me to wear one of those cheap hot Richard Nixon masks and it accomplishes the same thing.

It's a target against one specific religious group of clothing, rather then attacking the anti-woman message the garb has... and more importantly that a lot of different things have.

What's worse? The burqa or the eating disorders caused by Western subjugation of women?

Both are issues that should be tackled together... and by discussion and reason. Not bans.



stof on 03 December 2009

Kasz216 said:
Once again... that's not a way to fix anything.

- It fixes the problem of people wearing Burkas.  That in and of itself is a problem.


There are tons of outfits just like a Burqa.

It's not illegal for me to wear one of those cheap hot Richard Nixon masks and it accomplishes the same thing.

And if a section of society had to wear nixon masks all day, then there'd be reason to discuss banning that too. How many outfits like the Burka are there that people actually wear? 

It's a target against one specific religious group of clothing, rather then attacking the anti-woman message the garb has... and more importantly that a lot of different things have.

yes it is a target against one specific group of religious clothing; Physically oppressive and isolating religious clothing. If your suggesting I'm only concerned with muslim clothing, I may point out that I specifically said this doesn't apply to the hijab.

What's worse? The burqa or the eating disorders caused by Western subjugation of women?

The eating disorder. And after 7 years being in a relationship with a woman who has to fight that disorder ever day, don't you think I'd support a ban on that if it could actually work? 

Both are issues that should be tackled together... and by discussion and reason. Not bans.

Except they're quite different. One is a phsycological disorder and one is a body covering. Eating disorders are a symptom of a problem within society, and I feel quite strongly about the need to tackle the causes and tools that lead to the prevalence of this condition (By the way, within this generation, eating disorders in Korea will definitely spike far higher than in the western world)

The burka isn't merely a symptom, it's a means.

You're saying that I'm willing to ban a symptom of subjugation. I'm saying I'm willing to ban a tool of it.

 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Kasz216 on 03 December 2009

It isn't a means.

It is simply a symptom.

A Burqa may be a problem... but once again... not everyone is forced to wear one... not even most people.


Put it this way. If some people were forced to smoke cigarettes because of their religion would you be for banning cigarettes?


Cigarettes are a LOT more dangerous then the Burqa (as are other things women are pressured to wear... such as high heels.)


The answer... I would hope. Would be of course not.

You don't make laws banning things. You make laws that prevent people from forcing people to do things.


When you ban a Burqa all you do is punish people who choose to wear such a thing... in reality you are inflicting a wrong against the people who choose to wear it... which are the majority.

Whether or not it is negative or dangerous is not for you or anybody else to judge.



Around the Network
trashleg on 05 December 2009
Kasz216 said:
It isn't a means.

It is simply a symptom.

A Burqa may be a problem... but once again... not everyone is forced to wear one... not even most people.


Put it this way. If some people were forced to smoke cigarettes because of their religion would you be for banning cigarettes?


Cigarettes are a LOT more dangerous then the Burqa (as are other things women are pressured to wear... such as high heels.)


The answer... I would hope. Would be of course not.

You don't make laws banning things. You make laws that prevent people from forcing people to do things.


When you ban a Burqa all you do is punish people who choose to wear such a thing... in reality you are inflicting a wrong against the people who choose to wear it... which are the majority.

Whether or not it is negative or dangerous is not for you or anybody else to judge.

i agree with the bolded. 100%



Highwaystar101 said: trashleg said that if I didn't pay back the money she leant me, she would come round and break my legs... That's why people call her trashleg, because she trashes the legs of the people she loan sharks money to.
zuvuyeay on 05 December 2009

i don't understand the banning church bells argument,why would a country even think of banning its own culture,

islamic countries wouldn't ban their own mosques,minarets,clothing,culture etc.....would they?

my grandmother and mother hate the full burkha,they don't like it when they are out shopping and surrounded by muslims with just eye slits,they feel threatened by it,they are entitled to their point of view,

as i'm sure that if in iran/saudi arabia a group of scantily clad western women were out shopping the locals would feel the same,

it is a different culture,why is so difficult for people to understand the differences that exist without it being derogatory,



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Rath on 05 December 2009

@Zuvuy. We are saying if Turkey for example banned church bells the West would be outraged. The Middle East has actually taken this ruling surprisingly well, they've just pointed out the massive hypocrisy and left it at that.



zuvuyeay on 05 December 2009
Rath said:
@Zuvuy. We are saying if Turkey for example banned church bells the West would be outraged. The Middle East has actually taken this ruling surprisingly well, they've just pointed out the massive hypocrisy and left it at that.

i wouldn't be outraged,i wonder how many church bells and churches there are in the middle east anyway,forgive my ignorance,

from my understanding of islam they knocked down all the churches 100's and 100's of years ago,when there were more christians than muslims in the middle east/africa,maybe i'm wrong,

also is there no hypocrisy in islam or iran/saudi arabia/middle east,

how many cathedrals would have to be built in the middle east before action would be taken.....?

 

 

 



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

NKAJ on 05 December 2009
Rath said:
@Zuvuy. We are saying if Turkey for example banned church bells the West would be outraged. The Middle East has actually taken this ruling surprisingly well, they've just pointed out the massive hypocrisy and left it at that.

um,how many churches do you htink ring their bells in the middle east?Somehow i odubt the west would be outraged,for example there is not a single church in saudi arabia,the west isnt outraged



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"