QuoteRiot erupts in French town as veiled woman claims police brutality
A riot erupted in a town near Paris on Friday night after police stopped and charged a woman wearing the Islamic face-covering veil. Residents accused police of using violence against the woman's family, while police unions say her husband attacked an officer.
Source to read more (RFI [Mainstream French Radio]) : //http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20130720-riot-erupts-french-town-veiled-woman-claims-police-brutality
Others sources in English language :
1.The time of Israel (Jewish media) : //http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-injured-in-clashes-at-burka-riot-outside-paris/
2.Galliawatch (French nationalist blog) : //http://galliawatch.blogspot.fr/2013/07/muslim-arrested-hundreds-riot.html
3.If you have another source share this with us please.
Sources in French language :
1.RFI (Mainstream French Radio) : //http://www.rfi.fr/france/20130720-trappes-voile-islamique-incidents-valls
2.RTL (Mainstream French Radio) : //http://www.rtl.fr/actualites/info/article/trappes-une-nuit-emprunte-de-violences-7763284564
3.Yahoo France (You know what is it) : //http://fr.news.yahoo.com/trappes-tensions-devant-commissariat-partie-nuit-050759973.html
4.Al Kanz (Muslim media) : //http://www.al-kanz.org/2013/07/20/trappes-temoignage/
5.CCIF (Muslim media) : //http://www.islamophobie.net/articles/2013/07/20/femme-voilee-trappes-police-violence
6.Ajib (Muslim media) : //http://www.ajib.fr/2013/07/trappes-interpellation/
7.Islamisme.fr (Right wing) : //http://www.islamisme.fr/scenes-de-guerilla-urbaine-a-trappes-78-des-centaines-dindividus-hostiles-devant-le-commissariat/
8.Riposte Laïque (Right wing) : //http://ripostelaique.com/un-ramadan-guerrier-a-trappes-pendant-que-les-politiques-minimisent.html
9.Défrancisation (Right wing) : //http://www.defrancisation.com/trappes-plus-de-200-musulmans-armes-prets-a-attaquer-le-commissariat-de-police/
10.There are already many sources.
And a fun time was had by all.........
I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the law, but both the woman and her husband were probably fully aware that she was violating the law. If they don't like the law in the country they emigrated to, why don't they emigrate to a country whose laws they agree with? Violating the law isn't the answer. (Or did they forget that they LOST the Battle of Tours?)
At first glance, it seems that the rioting was bit of an overreaction. Even so, I've always thought that this was an oppressive law. A clear violation of individual rights.
There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
Quote from: "Colanth"There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out? That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out? That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.
Some societal norms have very good reasons for existing and are enshrined in laws, some lend themselves more to flexibility....
While on the one hand the law seems like (and is) a violation of both individual rights and specifically targeted against a religion, I'm not opposed to a rule that requires people to have their faces revealed when in public. It's both annoying and unsettling to see people walking around with their entire face covered. Makes you feel like they have something to hide.
I wonder how long it'd take before someone confronted you about always wearing a motorcycle helmet with a closed and blacked out visor in public.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out? That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.
The spirit of individual and civil rights is to CONFORM to social norms (which include protection of individual and civil rights). The one right you DON'T have is depriving ME of MY rights - which is what Muslim extremists in a lot of Western countries are doing now.
It's really simple - making you pay for the product you want isn't depriving you of rights. Making you conform to the norms of a society from which you want benefits isn't depriving you of rights. If you don't want to pay, do without the product. If you don't want to conform, do without the benefits. Making you get out is a lot nicer than making a law that you're no longer protected by the law.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out? That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.
Some societal norms have very good reasons for existing and are enshrined in laws, some lend themselves more to flexibility....
Of course. And others are oppressive. Consider the laws in some countries that requires the wearing of veils. In those countries, the same attitude exits. If you don't like it, get out, or go to jail.
Actually in most of those countries, "get out" is not a supported option. They probably realise too many people would use it. Usually the options are "swallow it" and "rot in jail for life".
And most of the people subject to those laws think they're a good thing. If we somehow took over those countries and made it illegal to wear veils, most of the women in them would consider it an intrusion on their right to wear veils.
Quote from: "Colanth"I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the law, but both the woman and her husband were probably fully aware that she was violating the law. If they don't like the law in the country they emigrated to, why don't they emigrate to a country whose laws they agree with? Violating the law isn't the answer. (Or did they forget that they LOST the Battle of Tours?)
No, that is bullshit, that would be like saying "If you don't like being a slave go back to Africa".
No, if they don't like the law, I agree work within the law, and compete in the political process to change it. Just like pot smoking, idiots who get arrested for it say "IT SHOULD BE LEGAL" , and I say, until then you are a stupid fuck for possessing it.
Now, where I do blame this man is his cultural superstition. I think safety over rides your religious rituals and ID is a very basic thing.
I blame them for living in the past and for any assault on law inforcement, but I don't say "If you don't like it leave". You do know that in America lots of Christians say that about atheists.
Muslims made a video only available in French called "Trappes , police , nikab , émeute , les médias vous mentent , voici ce qui s'est réellement passé [Trappes , police , niqab , riot , the medias lie to you , here what's really happened] : youtube.com/watch?v=9Wb93wIZp7M
Resume (this resume is only about the arrestation) : They said that a woman with her husband and her child of four month had a control of identity (all the family had this control of identity) by police officers (when that happen you must show your "carte national d'identité" or national identity card [ID] in English language). They collaborated after the police said somethings like "ici t'est en France [Here you're in France]" , "tenue de chauve-souris ce n'est pas le carnaval" [Clothes of bat this is not the carnaval]. The mother explain that she're not OK about what they said , a police officer pushed her (the speaker don't know exactly what's happened because he said that he can't explain what's happened). The daughter take part in this conflict and said something like "vous ne touchez pas à ma mère" [Don't touch my mother]. After they tell others violence commited by police officers. They busted the couple (the speakers tell that the couple don't beat the police officers).
Personal think : They believe maybe really what they say or they practise the taqiyya (Arabic : ???? ).
What is it ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya)
For me theirs version is probably untrue. I already saw muslims insult the police and fight with them (it was not in Trappes).
After the muslims accuse the police to beat them so then that they are those who started the battle , this is a classic.
Clearly the law is aimed at the religion. Motorcyclists drive masked all the time with no harassment.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Clearly the law is aimed at the religion. Motorcyclists drive masked all the time with no harassment.
Sure, and when they get off their bike they also take off the helm. Over here, people aren't allowed to enter a public building wearing a helm.
As far as I know, almost everywhere in the West there have always been laws prescribing people to be always recognizable in public, that is, not hiding their face. These laws have always been overlooked in the name of "religious tolerance". Now some countries like France have finally got the balls to enforce them and to explicitely prohibit certain clothing items. Good on them. Hell with the tolerance of intolerant, monstrous beliefs.
Quote from: "Plu"While on the one hand the law seems like (and is) a violation of both individual rights and specifically targeted against a religion, I'm not opposed to a rule that requires people to have their faces revealed when in public. It's both annoying and unsettling to see people walking around with their entire face covered. Makes you feel like they have something to hide.
When I see someone walking down the street with their face covered. I don't think "Oh look, there goes a person exercising their right as an individual to wear whatever they want.". I think "Mugger, rapist, or robber."
My point exactly.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"There's a sign on the door of my bank that one must remove brimmed hats and sunglasses before entering. Is that also a violation of civil rights? Some things are obvious, some are just too stupid to write legal exceptions for. Women in French society don't normally cover their faces in public. If one doesn't want to live in French society, one shouldn't live in France. (And that falls into both of the above classes.) People who want the benefits of Western society while living in the Middle East sociologically just don't have that right.
So if you don't conform to the current societal norms, get the hell out? That's not really in the spirit of individual and civil rights.
The spirit of individual and civil rights is to CONFORM to social norms (which include protection of individual and civil rights). The one right you DON'T have is depriving ME of MY rights - which is what Muslim extremists in a lot of Western countries are doing now.
I think you and I have different ideas on individual liberty. I don't think that anyone should mess with another's life, health, liberty or possession and government's only role in this matter is to try and enforce it. To outlaw a piece of clothing because it's associated with a violent sub-culture doesn't really fit the bill for me. And this is clearly about religious/culture identity rather than public safety, as you've just implied. I don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.
Quote from: "Colanth"It's really simple - making you pay for the product you want isn't depriving you of rights. Making you conform to the norms of a society from which you want benefits isn't depriving you of rights. If you don't want to pay, do without the product. If you don't want to conform, do without the benefits. Making you get out is a lot nicer than making a law that you're no longer protected by the law.
I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society. Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.
On that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive. People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.
QuoteI don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.
It's not so much the choice of attire, it's the covering of the entire body and inability to identify the person inside the outfit. When thugs wear a face concealing scarf and hat, the police will ask them to take that off a well.
It's nice to assume that there's some poor opressed woman inside the tent, but it could also be a robber, and nobody will be able to identify the person aftewards. That's why no other forms of total concealment are tolerated in public (except when actively driving a motorcycle, for safety reasons) and "my religion prescribes it" shouldn't be an exception to it, imho.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI don't particularly like the way skinheads, thugs, gangstas, outlaw bikers, or skulking teenagers with hoodies dress, but I don't think that there should be laws regulating their attire.
It's not so much the choice of attire, it's the covering of the entire body and inability to identify the person inside the outfit. When thugs wear a face concealing scarf and hat, the police will ask them to take that off a well.
It's nice to assume that there's some poor opressed woman inside the tent, but it could also be a robber, and nobody will be able to identify the person aftewards. That's why no other forms of total concealment are tolerated in public (except when actively driving a motorcycle, for safety reasons) and "my religion prescribes it" shouldn't be an exception to it, imho.
Why is it any of your business if someone completely conceals themselves? Are they hurting you, or anyone, or is it because you don't like it? Is there an overwhelming number of Muslim women in France who've used niqabs to conceal their identities while committing crimes? Well, other than wearing niqabs. The law is aimed at suppressing a religious sub-culture, albeit an archaic one. The ruse of safety and security, in my opinion, is just that. Legal trickery to suppress an immigrant culture. If you're going to do that, don't be cowards about it, just come out and say it.
Don't get me wrong, I think niqabs and burkas are creepy, but it's not my place, or anyone else's, to tell people how to live their lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. That's the direction my moral compass points and I can't really convince myself otherwise. If you think it's OK to oppress people for the "greater good," or to achieve your ideal society, or just because you don't like it, that's your prerogative, but expect me to disagree.
And by the way, have you seen those folks in protests, all over the place, concealing their identity, wearing masks and bandannas? I think they should be open about their views, but can you blame them? Like I said, their choice.
QuoteWhy is it any of your business if someone completely conceals themselves?
Because I'm in the public domain as well, so the feeling of unease that comes off of people that completely conceal themselves affects me. They might not be hurting anyone, but when a fully concealed person ever decides to hurt anyone, there's practically nothing anyone can do about it because they'll be completely impossible to identify.
I don't agree with the current wording (and I've been opposed to our local right-wing extremist who suggested the same thing because of his wording as well), but the general idea of "don't conceal your identity when you walk across the street" is a good one. And with the exception of religious extremists it's also more or less accepted by everyone that you don't cover your entire face and body when you walk across the street.
(Hell, when you walk across the street with a hoody with the cover up and a cap, you're singled out by the cops because they assume you're up to no good because you're trying to hide who you are.)
QuoteAnd by the way, have you seen those folks in protests, all over the place, concealing their identity, wearing masks and bandannas? I think they should be open about their views, but can you blame them? Like I said, their choice.
Yeah, I think that's pretty weak. If you're going to protest in a civilised country, at least have the balls to come out and show who you are that's supporting the issue. The fact that you're willing to go out and walk in a protest but are too scared to attach your face to it shows that you either know what you're protesting for is socially unacceptable or morally wrong, or you're just in it because there might be riots and you know you're going to do stuff that isn't legal.
People who honestly oppose something and are willing to go in into a protest with the best intentions and an actual noble cause don't hide their identities.
(Again; in a civilised country. The rules are different if you're protesting against Islam in Iraq, obviously.)
(Oh and if they want to wear their concealing gear inside their own homes or inside a private area, that's fine with me. It's only a problem when they wear that kind of stuff in public.)
Well Plu, I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I wonder if the French police arrest people in the winter for wearing balaclavas or scarves on their faces. They might be criminals.
French winter is not that cold :P
Quote from: "Jack89"I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society. Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.
That works fine if the playing field is level. But if one group insists, to the point of violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.
Laws arer for those situations which social controls don't control.
QuoteOn that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive. People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.
That's just what happened. People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that. In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah". If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm. You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has. Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society. Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.
That works fine if the playing field is level. But if one group insists, to the point of violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.
Laws are for those situations which social controls don't control.
You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom. I said so myself in a previous response to you. But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want. That's liberty and essentially what J.S. Mill's Harm Principle is, among others.
Quote from: "Colanth"QuoteOn that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive. People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.
That's just what happened. People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that. In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah". If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm. You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has. Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.
I can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty? Keep in mind that even if you have the majority rule on something that suppresses individual rights, it's still called oppression. That's pretty much the definition of "tyranny of the majority."
The reason I advocate social controls is because they make it socially desirable, or undesirable, to behave a certain way, but not mandatory. This gives those people who truly believe that that status quo is wrong a chance to express their opinions without getting thrown in the slammer. They just have to endure some discomfort from the majority. On the other hand, if you make it law, behavior is compulsory and the non-conformists go to jail even if they're not hurting anyone. Keep in mind that the harm principle, or some variation thereof, is always in effect. I wonder how many people are currently in prison who weren't a threat to anyone, or their property.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.
I'm tired and going to bed.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"I'm all for integrating into a society and adopting the norms, but to make laws demanding it is counter to a free society. Integration should be encouraged by social controls and not legal ones, and if you don't want to comply with the norms, you suffer the social consequences.
That works fine if the playing field is level. But if one group insists, to the point of violence, that its social controls be the ones that everyone adheres to, social control stops working.
Laws are for those situations which social controls don't control.
You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom. I said so myself in a previous response to you. But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.
And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?
Quote from: "Colanth"QuoteOn that note, I do think that current laws should be complied with even if you do think the're oppressive. People should work to get rid of them legally if they think they're wrong.
That's just what happened. People thought the current law - allowing people to be masked in public - was wrong, and worked to change that. In Western society, covering your face in public is being masked, not "obeying Allah". If they want to contravene the social norms, let them go to a place in which what they want is the social norm. You don't walk into someone's house, invited or not, and insist that he change his furniture because you don't like the furniture he has. Even commenting on how terrible it looks is considered socially wrong.
QuoteI can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty?
Read your comment and you'll see that you're contradicting yourself. People should work to get rid of current laws with which they don't agree - unless it's at the expense of personal liberty? That would be preventing the people who want to get rid of the current laws from practicing their own personal liberty.
QuoteKeep in mind that even if you have the majority rule on something that suppresses individual rights, it's still called oppression.
So is preventing people from getting rid of laws they no longer consider applicable to the current situation.
QuoteThat's pretty much the definition of "tyranny of the majority."
And preventing it by not allowing society to change is called (I'm coining a phrase) tyranny of the minority.
Again - you don't go into someone's house and demand that he change his decor. Doing that isn't freedom, it's tyranny.
QuoteThe reason I advocate social controls is because they make it socially desirable, or undesirable, to behave a certain way, but not mandatory.
But when a minority group insists that it be mandatory that everyone follow THEIR social controls, the majority has the right to fight back.
QuoteThis gives those people who truly believe that that status quo is wrong a chance to express their opinions without getting thrown in the slammer.
They had that right. The indigenes decided that they shouldn't. When social control failed to work, they passed laws.
A society that isn't allowed to protect itself from invasion, whether military or social, is a society well on its way to extinction.
QuoteThey just have to endure some discomfort from the majority.
That's if social control works. In this case, they inflict discomfort on the majority.
QuoteOn the other hand, if you make it law, behavior is compulsory and the non-conformists go to jail even if they're not hurting anyone.
It's up to "everyone" to decide whether they're being hurt. In this case they evidently decided that they were. (Maybe not by a woman wearing a veil, but by the concept that a certain group was exempt from "social control".)
QuoteKeep in mind that the harm principle, or some variation thereof, is always in effect. I wonder how many people are currently in prison who weren't a threat to anyone, or their property.
Probably quite a few. And probably quite a few who are a threat aren't incarcerated. Neither fact is relevant to the situation here - which is that the people who wanted the law passed felt that they WERE being harmed by the group that refused to comply with social convention.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom. I said so myself in a previous response to you. But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.
And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?
From a concealing veil to radical Muslims who harm others is quite the leap. Is this justification for taking away individual freedoms?
Quote from: "Colanth"QuoteI can understand the desire to defend tradition and cultural norms, and that's what you seem to be talking about, but is it right to do so at the expense of individual liberty?
Read your comment and you'll see that you're contradicting yourself. People should work to get rid of current laws with which they don't agree - unless it's at the expense of personal liberty?
That's not a contradiction, it's my point. I don't think people should let their individual freedom be taken from them, even for the promise safety and security, or the greatness of France, or whatever promise you think your government will fulfill. What's more important than the ability to live the life that you choose?
I know that a lot of people think the rational decision is to give up some of their freedom for safety, or fiscal security, or for some Utopian ideal. I don't. Harassing a deluded woman for wearing a veil over her face is fucked up. You're not fighting off the Muslim hordes, you're making a person, a human being, feel trapped and unwelcome for thinking different than you. Who are you, or the collective French, to tell this woman what she can't wear on her face? How about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.
I think I'm done with this thread. Cheers.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"You've just describe where a lot have people, including myself, draw the limits of freedom. I said so myself in a previous response to you. But up until the point where it is clear that someone will do harm to another, they should be able to do what they want.
And it's not clear that most radical Muslims will harm others to get what they want?
From a concealing veil to radical Muslims who harm others is quite the leap. Is this justification for taking away individual freedoms?
The "individual freedom" to assume that the social norm doesn't apply to you? Yes.
QuoteThat's not a contradiction, it's my point. I don't think people should let their individual freedom be taken from them
Exactly, and the people of France don't think that their individual freedom to dictate the social norm of France should be taken from them.
QuoteWhat's more important than the ability to live the life that you choose?
That's the whole point. They want the freedom to live their lives the way THEY choose, not the way some recent immigrants decide they have to live.
QuoteI know that a lot of people think the rational decision is to give up some of their freedom for safety
Nope - the people who decided to not allow Muslims to turn France into a Muslim country aren't giving up any of their freedoms, and they're not doing what they did for safety.
They're demanding that the man who walked into their house can't dictate what kind of furniture they can have in that house. They just want the freedom to do their own decorating.
QuoteHarassing a deluded woman for wearing a veil over her face
They didn't. They "harassed" her for violating the law. If she doesn't like that law she can do what they did - work - THROUGH THE LAW - to get it changed. Or change her decision to live in a country whose laws she doesn't like.
How would, say, the citizens of Iran feel if a few Americans moved to Iran, then insisted that the laws of Iran be made secular and that no woman could cover her face in public?
QuoteYou're not fighting off the Muslim hordes, you're making a person, a human being, feel trapped and unwelcome for thinking different than you.
She IS different - she thinks that the social norms of the society in which SHE CHOSE to live don't apply to her.
QuoteWho are you, or the collective French, to tell this woman what she can't wear on her face?
Who are the French to tell people residing in France how people residing in France have to behave? That's how a democracy works, that's who.
QuoteHow about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.
How about she first starts obeying the laws of the country she chooses to reside in? Guests don't get to dictate the rules of the place they're guests in. (Unless they're Muslims who move to non-Muslim countries? Non-Muslim guests in Muslim countries sure don't get to dictate the rules in the Muslim countries they move to.)
QuoteI think I'm done with this thread.
I think you are.
QuoteHow about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.
They try that in the netherlands. It doesn't really stick. There's still a clear muslim vs non-muslim split in terms of culture. Fortunately we don't have a culture of our own so we don't really care, but many muslims (especially the fundamentalist ones) make it a point not to assimilate, even across multiple generations.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteHow about treating her and her family with dignity, and perhaps encourage them to assimilate.
They try that in the netherlands. It doesn't really stick. There's still a clear muslim vs non-muslim split in terms of culture. Fortunately we don't have a culture of our own so we don't really care, but many muslims (especially the fundamentalist ones) make it a point not to assimilate, even across multiple generations.
Then what was the point for Muslims to come to the Netherlands in the first place? I mean the 1st generation anyway.
Different Muslims, different reasons. To spread Islam, to make money, to get out from under a regime they didn't like (if you think Islam/Christianity is a bad enmity, look at Shia/Sunni). The main point, though, is that a large percentage of Muslims who emigrate to Christian countries want to live in Muslim society, so they insist that their "adopted" country adopt THEIR way of living. And they'll get quite militant if they don't get their way. It's not a matter of a woman covering her face in public, it's a matter of not only not adopting the ways of the country you move to, but insisting that it adopt your ways. Whether those ways are women covering their faces in public or killing Christians (read history - or at least read Santayana) makes very little difference. Once the camel gets his nose into the tent, you'll be sleeping on camel dung.
Well, Im sorry but I don't see how you can handle that stupid. Even escaping a regime you don't like you made the CONSCIENCE decision to go to a secular, non-Islam country. What do you expect? People are going to have fun (or at least more fun) and you got to be respectful and at least follow some BASIC stuff that has been used to keep order. You can't go to a country in need then want to act like invaders and turn into the place you just left.
Quote from: "Triple Nine"Well, Im sorry but I don't see how you can handle that stupid. Even escaping a regime you don't like you made the CONSCIENCE decision to go to a secular, non-Islam country. What do you expect? People are going to have fun (or at least more fun) and you got to be respectful and at least follow some BASIC stuff that has been used to keep order. You can't go to a country in need then want to act like invaders and turn into the place you just left.
No, you can't - and expect the people to just lie down and let you walk all over them. If you grew up in Western society. If you grew up in radical Muslim society, that's exactly what you expect. You threaten to do harm if you don't get your way, and you expect that "those degenerate Westerners" won't argue.
I'm not saying that all Muslims do this. We don't need laws to stop the ones who come to the West expecting to live in Western society. We need laws to stop the ones who come to the West and expect to live in a Muslim society, even if they have to force us to adhere to their standards. I'm not advocating laws against mosques. But I am in favor of laws that say that you can't come here and force us to become you. People who do that didn't come to France (or other Western countries) to live in a "secular, non-Islam country", they came to export radical Islam. And you're in favor of not abrogating their personal freedom to do that?
Sorry, but I started a new topic in regards to this one. //http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1857
It explains what I think about these riots and may help some of you see my point of view. :oops: