France gets tough...

[Isegrim 9897]

I like it how Stevie finds the newest most stupid comment posted on the internet nearly every other day.

 

I do also think that Leazes would make a good Taliban with his radical views on civil liberties, education and intellectualism.

[NJS 4411]

I do also think that Leazes would make a good Taliban with his radical views on civil liberties, education and intellectualism.

 

I've said before that it's ironic that his views on law and justice are very "Shariah".

Edited January 22, 2010 by NJS

[ChezGiven 0]

So, Leazes's response to my well-reasoned and logical posts was "you're a yank, fuck off." Brilliant Your response to try to prove you aren't just a bitter, uneducated xenophobe with an inexplicable grudge against anyone not English is "well you're not from my country so nothing you say could possibly be accurate." Jog on you old loon

 

Listen to you you sad old man. "Those who support Muslims" "those with Muslim sympathies" etc etc. Haven't you got that not all of us are bombers yet? Or is that what your "vast life experience" has shown you? If so, I wonder what you were doing experiencing terrorist training camps, since that's the only place on Earth you could've "experienced" the nonsense you're spouting. What does that say for your sympathies? Get used to us Leazes, we're here to stay.

 

As for spelling, well, when you live and work here, went to school here, lost points for using the "wrong" spelling of words, you learn to adapt. So I see your "born and bred" comment Stevie and I won't dispute the "bred" part. We are what we are.

 

your insults do you no favours. As I said, you know nothing about me and aren't going to find out. My views are based on life experience and not by reading a book by an out of touch "intellectual"

 

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Even one?

 

I'd say my experience of Muslims, Islam and Islamic society trumps yours, Leazes, by virtue of me being one and working, living, playing and just generally associating with probably thousands of them over my lifetime. I didn't need any books, "intellectual" or otherwise, to tell me your ridiculous views on an entire society of people are wrong. So unless you're about to tell me you're actually an Islamic scholar and world traveller (two l's just for you!) whose theories are backed by years of research and proof, I'm holding to the view of "you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Getting back to the OP, the ironic thing is that I don't even support burqas or really anything but the simplest of hijab. The burqa isn't part of Islam - in fact, and many people don't know this, when Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca, completing the most significant event in the religion, they are expressly forbidden to have their faces covered. Burqas and other restrictive coverings are born of two things that feed off each other - the remnants of tribal culture and civilisation, and the radicalisation of areas that still hold to those views. The reasoning goes "well, if Muslim women are meant to have their heads covered, and that's sunna (permitted and encouraged), then covering more of them must be even more sunna." Places like those have assigned low value to women for thousands of years, well before the advent of Islam, which changed little. I'm thoroughly against that kind of enslavement of women as most sensible people are.

 

The trouble is that some honestly do choose - whether due to pressures familial or cultural, or a misguided desire to adhere to their religion faithfully - to wear such things, and I don't feel it's the state's right to dictate whether they can or not. And I also feel that if it were, let's say, Hindus or Jews that had to wear facial coverings as part of their religion rather than Muslims, then we wouldn't hear a word against it.

 

Nice post but diasagree with you. Its is absolutely the state's right to dictate on this issue, as it is the state's right to impose Sharia law in a majority Islamic country. (the issues of state's rights boiled down simply to majority in this instance).

 

France has a highly secular government and society, all religions are tolerated well but NONE are more important than the right of the Republic to uphold its secular roots.

[Guest Stevie]

So, Leazes's response to my well-reasoned and logical posts was "you're a yank, fuck off." Brilliant Your response to try to prove you aren't just a bitter, uneducated xenophobe with an inexplicable grudge against anyone not English is "well you're not from my country so nothing you say could possibly be accurate." Jog on you old loon

 

Listen to you you sad old man. "Those who support Muslims" "those with Muslim sympathies" etc etc. Haven't you got that not all of us are bombers yet? Or is that what your "vast life experience" has shown you? If so, I wonder what you were doing experiencing terrorist training camps, since that's the only place on Earth you could've "experienced" the nonsense you're spouting. What does that say for your sympathies? Get used to us Leazes, we're here to stay.

 

As for spelling, well, when you live and work here, went to school here, lost points for using the "wrong" spelling of words, you learn to adapt. So I see your "born and bred" comment Stevie and I won't dispute the "bred" part. We are what we are.

 

your insults do you no favours. As I said, you know nothing about me and aren't going to find out. My views are based on life experience and not by reading a book by an out of touch "intellectual"

 

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Even one?

 

I'd say my experience of Muslims, Islam and Islamic society trumps yours, Leazes, by virtue of me being one and working, living, playing and just generally associating with probably thousands of them over my lifetime. I didn't need any books, "intellectual" or otherwise, to tell me your ridiculous views on an entire society of people are wrong. So unless you're about to tell me you're actually an Islamic scholar and world traveller (two l's just for you!) whose theories are backed by years of research and proof, I'm holding to the view of "you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Getting back to the OP, the ironic thing is that I don't even support burqas or really anything but the simplest of hijab. The burqa isn't part of Islam - in fact, and many people don't know this, when Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca, completing the most significant event in the religion, they are expressly forbidden to have their faces covered. Burqas and other restrictive coverings are born of two things that feed off each other - the remnants of tribal culture and civilisation, and the radicalisation of areas that still hold to those views. The reasoning goes "well, if Muslim women are meant to have their heads covered, and that's sunna (permitted and encouraged), then covering more of them must be even more sunna." Places like those have assigned low value to women for thousands of years, well before the advent of Islam, which changed little. I'm thoroughly against that kind of enslavement of women as most sensible people are.

 

The trouble is that some honestly do choose - whether due to pressures familial or cultural, or a misguided desire to adhere to their religion faithfully - to wear such things, and I don't feel it's the state's right to dictate whether they can or not. And I also feel that if it were, let's say, Hindus or Jews that had to wear facial coverings as part of their religion rather than Muslims, then we wouldn't hear a word against it.

Victims, singled out, wrong done to, unjustified intimidation, systematic persecution. All words and phrases used to describe scousers down the years, which quite clearly are also applicable for muslims too.

 

You mention the fact if this were jews wearing the burqa nothing would be said. Forgetting about the holocaust all together, jewish people have been the most abused down trodden group mankind has ever known from biblical times onward, and a large reason for this is jealousy. There's 13m jews worldwide, there has never been a group of people who have been better at making money, that's why Hitler hated them so much. Most of the foundations of the world banking system have jewish roots. They are hated by many, a very small group of 13m people in a world of 6 billion, don't ever think muslims have had it harder than them. Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them). Fucking muslims, you couldn't make the arrogance of them up.

[NJS 4411]

Nice post but diasagree with you. Its is absolutely the state's right to dictate on this issue, as it is the state's right to impose Sharia law in a majority Islamic country. (the issues of state's rights boiled down simply to majority in this instance).

 

France has a highly secular government and society, all religions are tolerated well but NONE are more important than the right of the Republic to uphold its secular roots.

 

I have no problem with the state expressing its disapproval and it shouldn't let extremist responses stop it from opening the debate which I think is worthy. However I think the principle of the right to individuality in terms of choice of clothes is pretty "sacred" as well.

 

I know there is an argument which says the law has no problem dictating against nudity but I think that's different.

 

I would also say that in democracies even though we talk about laws "imposed" by government, most if not all of the laws are pretty aggreeable by the majority in principle, leaving the obvious ones aside, many people might think speeding laws are anti-freedom but they'd still have to admit they are "right" - I don't think imposing dresscodes in any sphere of public life could be "by consent" no matter how worthy the idea behiond them to "liberate" the women.

[NJS 4411]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

[Guest Stevie]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

They can all do what they like in their own countries.

[ChezGiven 0]

Nice post but diasagree with you. Its is absolutely the state's right to dictate on this issue, as it is the state's right to impose Sharia law in a majority Islamic country. (the issues of state's rights boiled down simply to majority in this instance).

 

France has a highly secular government and society, all religions are tolerated well but NONE are more important than the right of the Republic to uphold its secular roots.

 

I have no problem with the state expressing its disapproval and it shouldn't let extremist responses stop it from opening the debate which I think is worthy. However I think the principle of the right to individuality in terms of choice of clothes is pretty "sacred" as well.

 

I know there is an argument which says the law has no problem dictating against nudity but I think that's different.

 

I would also say that in democracies even though we talk about laws "imposed" by government, most if not all of the laws are pretty aggreeable by the majority in principle, leaving the obvious ones aside, many people might think speeding laws are anti-freedom but they'd still have to admit they are "right" - I don't think imposing dresscodes in any sphere of public life could be "by consent" no matter how worthy the idea behiond them to "liberate" the women.

 

Then i'd suggest your understanding of your rights as a citizen are more based on the UK's constitution, not the French one.

 

Liberty is place alonside equality and fraternity, none outweighing the other.

[NJS 4411]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

They can all do what they like in their own countries.

 

Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly?

[NJS 4411]

Then i'd suggest your understanding of your rights as a citizen are more based on the UK's constitution, not the French one.

 

Liberty is place alonside equality and fraternity, none outweighing the other.

 

Fair point - I know in this instance the opening topic was the French proposal but I was thinking more generally - though accepting a UK skewed approach as you say.

[ChezGiven 0]

I really need to sort out my spelling.

[The Fish 10963]

It's odd. I've always felt the moderate, liberal folk to be the ones who mre readily accept the scope and scale of the world's problems and don't try to simplify it with a "just go home darkie" response. But if Leazes amassed life experience tells him that all these scholars, all these great minds are wrong, then by golly I'll change my ways and instead be intolerant, lack plurality, be reactionary and pointedly ignorant. Afterall we're in the right, right?

Edited January 22, 2010 by The Fish

[Guest Stevie]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

They can all do what they like in their own countries.

 

Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly?

No because Hitler's actions were massively wrong and a threat to our existence. As for countries who commit genocide well that's another debate, the 1.5m dead tsutsi's we stood back and did fuck all, same as the yanks.

[NJS 4411]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

They can all do what they like in their own countries.

 

Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly?

No because Hitler's actions were massively wrong and a threat to our existence. As for countries who commit genocide well that's another debate, the 1.5m dead tsutsi's we stood back and did fuck all, same as the yanks.

 

Thing is theres a valid argument over whether Israel is "their country".

 

I think in general there should be a consensus to sort out problems around the world up to and including full scale "Iraqs" - its just a shame the UN never lived up to its ideals and responses are always so fragmented.

[Park Life 71]

I like it how Stevie finds the newest most stupid comment posted on the internet nearly every other day.

 

I do also think that Leazes would make a good Taliban with his radical views on civil liberties, education and intellectualism.

 

[Park Life 71]

So, Leazes's response to my well-reasoned and logical posts was "you're a yank, fuck off." Brilliant Your response to try to prove you aren't just a bitter, uneducated xenophobe with an inexplicable grudge against anyone not English is "well you're not from my country so nothing you say could possibly be accurate." Jog on you old loon

 

Listen to you you sad old man. "Those who support Muslims" "those with Muslim sympathies" etc etc. Haven't you got that not all of us are bombers yet? Or is that what your "vast life experience" has shown you? If so, I wonder what you were doing experiencing terrorist training camps, since that's the only place on Earth you could've "experienced" the nonsense you're spouting. What does that say for your sympathies? Get used to us Leazes, we're here to stay.

 

As for spelling, well, when you live and work here, went to school here, lost points for using the "wrong" spelling of words, you learn to adapt. So I see your "born and bred" comment Stevie and I won't dispute the "bred" part. We are what we are.

 

your insults do you no favours. As I said, you know nothing about me and aren't going to find out. My views are based on life experience and not by reading a book by an out of touch "intellectual"

 

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Even one?

 

I'd say my experience of Muslims, Islam and Islamic society trumps yours, Leazes, by virtue of me being one and working, living, playing and just generally associating with probably thousands of them over my lifetime. I didn't need any books, "intellectual" or otherwise, to tell me your ridiculous views on an entire society of people are wrong. So unless you're about to tell me you're actually an Islamic scholar and world traveller (two l's just for you!) whose theories are backed by years of research and proof, I'm holding to the view of "you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Getting back to the OP, the ironic thing is that I don't even support burqas or really anything but the simplest of hijab. The burqa isn't part of Islam - in fact, and many people don't know this, when Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca, completing the most significant event in the religion, they are expressly forbidden to have their faces covered. Burqas and other restrictive coverings are born of two things that feed off each other - the remnants of tribal culture and civilisation, and the radicalisation of areas that still hold to those views. The reasoning goes "well, if Muslim women are meant to have their heads covered, and that's sunna (permitted and encouraged), then covering more of them must be even more sunna." Places like those have assigned low value to women for thousands of years, well before the advent of Islam, which changed little. I'm thoroughly against that kind of enslavement of women as most sensible people are.

 

The trouble is that some honestly do choose - whether due to pressures familial or cultural, or a misguided desire to adhere to their religion faithfully - to wear such things, and I don't feel it's the state's right to dictate whether they can or not. And I also feel that if it were, let's say, Hindus or Jews that had to wear facial coverings as part of their religion rather than Muslims, then we wouldn't hear a word against it.

 

Nice post but diasagree with you. Its is absolutely the state's right to dictate on this issue, as it is the state's right to impose Sharia law in a majority Islamic country. (the issues of state's rights boiled down simply to majority in this instance).

 

France has a highly secular government and society, all religions are tolerated well but NONE are more important than the right of the Republic to uphold its secular roots.

 

The French will let little or nothing fuck with their freedoms, I'll give them that.

[Park Life 71]

So, Leazes's response to my well-reasoned and logical posts was "you're a yank, fuck off." Brilliant Your response to try to prove you aren't just a bitter, uneducated xenophobe with an inexplicable grudge against anyone not English is "well you're not from my country so nothing you say could possibly be accurate." Jog on you old loon

 

Listen to you you sad old man. "Those who support Muslims" "those with Muslim sympathies" etc etc. Haven't you got that not all of us are bombers yet? Or is that what your "vast life experience" has shown you? If so, I wonder what you were doing experiencing terrorist training camps, since that's the only place on Earth you could've "experienced" the nonsense you're spouting. What does that say for your sympathies? Get used to us Leazes, we're here to stay.

 

As for spelling, well, when you live and work here, went to school here, lost points for using the "wrong" spelling of words, you learn to adapt. So I see your "born and bred" comment Stevie and I won't dispute the "bred" part. We are what we are.

 

your insults do you no favours. As I said, you know nothing about me and aren't going to find out. My views are based on life experience and not by reading a book by an out of touch "intellectual"

 

Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Even one?

 

I'd say my experience of Muslims, Islam and Islamic society trumps yours, Leazes, by virtue of me being one and working, living, playing and just generally associating with probably thousands of them over my lifetime. I didn't need any books, "intellectual" or otherwise, to tell me your ridiculous views on an entire society of people are wrong. So unless you're about to tell me you're actually an Islamic scholar and world traveller (two l's just for you!) whose theories are backed by years of research and proof, I'm holding to the view of "you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Getting back to the OP, the ironic thing is that I don't even support burqas or really anything but the simplest of hijab. The burqa isn't part of Islam - in fact, and many people don't know this, when Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca, completing the most significant event in the religion, they are expressly forbidden to have their faces covered. Burqas and other restrictive coverings are born of two things that feed off each other - the remnants of tribal culture and civilisation, and the radicalisation of areas that still hold to those views. The reasoning goes "well, if Muslim women are meant to have their heads covered, and that's sunna (permitted and encouraged), then covering more of them must be even more sunna." Places like those have assigned low value to women for thousands of years, well before the advent of Islam, which changed little. I'm thoroughly against that kind of enslavement of women as most sensible people are.

 

The trouble is that some honestly do choose - whether due to pressures familial or cultural, or a misguided desire to adhere to their religion faithfully - to wear such things, and I don't feel it's the state's right to dictate whether they can or not. And I also feel that if it were, let's say, Hindus or Jews that had to wear facial coverings as part of their religion rather than Muslims, then we wouldn't hear a word against it.

Victims, singled out, wrong done to, unjustified intimidation, systematic persecution. All words and phrases used to describe scousers down the years, which quite clearly are also applicable for muslims too.

 

You mention the fact if this were jews wearing the burqa nothing would be said. Forgetting about the holocaust all together, jewish people have been the most abused down trodden group mankind has ever known from biblical times onward, and a large reason for this is jealousy. There's 13m jews worldwide, there has never been a group of people who have been better at making money, that's why Hitler hated them so much. Most of the foundations of the world banking system have jewish roots. They are hated by many, a very small group of 13m people in a world of 6 billion, don't ever think muslims have had it harder than them. Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them). Fucking muslims, you couldn't make the arrogance of them up.

 

Man Utd and Liverpool are quickly finding out all about Jewish money men and their tricks. Also don't forget a there is a large anit-Zionist groups inside Israel who think the state needs to change its ways.

 

They carried out terrorism against British sodiers btw and blew up hotels and whatnot:

 

"Assassination of government official outside Palestine: first used against the British in Cairo, 6 November, 1944 when Lord Moyne, Secretary of State, was assassinated by the Stern Gang. Yitzhak Shamir, a member of the Irgun and later leader of the Stern Gang was behind the plan.

 

Taking of hostages to put pressure on a government: first used against the British in Tel Aviv, 18 June, 1946.

 

Blowing up government offices with their civilian employees and visitors: first used against the British in Jerusalem, 22 July, 1946. The toll was 91 Britons, and 46 injured in King David Hotel. Begin, who masterminded and carried out the attack admitted that the massacre was coordinated with and carried out under the instruction of the Haganah.

 

Booby-trapped suitcase: first used against the British Embassy in Rome, 13 October, 1946.

 

Booby-trapped car parked alongside buildings: first used against the British in Sarafand (east of Jaffa) on 5 December, 1946.

 

Flogging of hostages: first used against the British in Tel Aviv, Natanya and Rishon, 29 December, 1946.

 

Letter-bombs sent to politicians outside Palestine: first used against Britain when twenty letter-bombs were sent from Italy to London between 4 and 6 June, 1947.

 

Murder of hostages as a reprisal for government actions: first used against the British in Natanya area on 29/30 July, 1947 and making a booby trap out of their bodies. The note left with the bodies read: "This is the sentence of the Irgun's High Command".

 

Postal Parcel-bomb sent outside Palestine: first used against the British in London, 3 September, 1947."

Edited January 22, 2010 by Park Life

[The Fish 10963]

... Not that Parky's got a thing about Jews or owt.

[Park Life 71]

Jewish people don't go blowing themselves up, they don't go flying planes in to buildings, they don't have elements that want to emigrate to countries dictating their laws should be administered by the alien country (to them)

 

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

They can all do what they like in their own countries.

 

Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly?

No because Hitler's actions were massively wrong and a threat to our existence. As for countries who commit genocide well that's another debate, the 1.5m dead tsutsi's we stood back and did fuck all, same as the yanks.

 

Thing is theres a valid argument over whether Israel is "their country".

 

I think in general there should be a consensus to sort out problems around the world up to and including full scale "Iraqs" - its just a shame the UN never lived up to its ideals and responses are always so fragmented.

 

I think Israel has the highest number of UN resolutions against it than any other country. Rogue state basically.

[Park Life 71]

... Not that Parky's got a thing about Jews or owt.

 

Israel mainly rather than Jews as such.

[ChezGiven 0]

... Not that Parky's got a thing about Jews or owt.

 

He may well be right though.

[The Fish 10963]

[Renton 21985]

... Not that Parky's got a thing about Jews or owt.

 

He may well be right though.

 

Verging on anti-semitic though. I love Jews me. Well, the secular New York comedian type anyway.

[Park Life 71]

... Not that Parky's got a thing about Jews or owt.

 

He may well be right though.

 

Verging on anti-semitic though. I love Jews me. Well, the secular New York comedian type anyway.

 

You see that's a very good example of how they want you to think. Thought of applying to the ADL?

 

I love Woody Allen as well.

[Guest alex]

TBF Parky you once told me that Anne Frank's Diary had been extensively altered after her death. A theory I later found out came from David Irving (although you didn't mention that at the time, funnily enough). I do think that sort of thing strays well into the realms of unpleasant anti-Semitism tbh.