Belgium bans the burqa, chador, and hijab.

[wet_suit_one]

I've said it before and I'll say it again as it is clearly true and proved daily.

NO ONE BELIEVES IN FREEDOM. NO ONE.

More proof in this post...

So it goes here amidst the humans...

 

[oldjones]

I think Number 1 was the Hutterites in Alberta. They fought the rule that you need to have a photo on your drivers license. Turned out that the court there said that they didn't need a driver's license. A license was a PRIVILEGE not a right. So if they wanted a license they had to get a photo taken.
Regarding number 5 I am a member of that religion and am being persecuted. But I am a white male who wears western clothes so I doubt anyone will listen to my cries. If I was a "gay elf" then I am sure that I could have pressed it to the "human rights commission" though.

Of course we successfully identified people with non-photo driver's licenses for generations, until the technology to cheaply laminate photos came along. Photos are useful, but we can manage without them.

In any case, a quick scan of the anti-burka responses shows security is a minor concern, among posters here at least. It isn't even mentioned in the quotes of the Belgian authorities promoting their law. They're quite candid about it being a 'forced requirement to do it our way'. 'Our' way being freedom and tolerance. As long as you're not a woman wearing a burka, which we won't try to tolerate. You're not free to wear that.

 

[oldjones]

These "religious freedom" cases seem to surface from time to time. Here are some I remember (perhaps not perfectly).
1) No photos on driver's license.
2) Polygamy.
3) No transporting alcohol in taxi.
4) Male doctor can't examine female patient.
5) Isn't there also a religion that forbids paying taxes?

You left out: No blood transfusions, Kidnapping First Nations kids to force them into Christian residential schools, Marijuana and peyote as religious sacraments, David Koresh, the Doukhabors, Shutting down the entire town on Sundays,.

We're imperfect and get this stuff wrong from time to time—most often by forcing our view on people who don't share it 'for their own good'—but in general we manage to work it out. But only in the direction of tolerance.

Intolerance, isn't that one of the things we decry in fundamentalism? Islamic or any other.

 

[PornAddict]

The creation of North American society was predicated on the Freedom of Religion.
This freedom is entrenched in the US Bills of Rights and Canadian Constitution.
Any laws that encroach on these freedoms are unconstitutional.

You may not like them,
you may not trust them,
you may not want them here,
you may want to expatriate them.
But they are only the last in a long line of "others" that have been persecuted.
2 generations ago, it was my family.

The Constitution Act, 1982, which includes te Charter of Rights and Freedoms,


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
Section 28, which states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.


So fuck you on Religion Freedom !!
Religion Freedom vs Gender Equality
When Religion freedom can be use under as a pretense of violating woman right or gender equality so woman pressure indirectly by social influence to wear a Muslim veil by their religious sect or family member.

Therefore when both is in conflict Gender equality must take precedent over religious freedom.

Someone or some government have to draw a line in defense of gender equality vs reglious freedom..



Thank god of Quebec having the balls to take on the muslem veil mentally as compare to rest of provincal qovernment or federal government who are too fucking chicken shit to take on the muslim religious community!
See Quebec Bill 92 ---Quebec veil law.

Premier Jean Charest told a news conference that the province was drawing a line in "defense of gender equality" and secular public institutions. "This is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told a news conference.
"This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us. ... An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."

 

[oldjones]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
Section 28, which states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.


So fuck you on Religion Freedom !! When Religion freedom is use under as a pretend of violating woman right or gender equality so woman pressure to wear a Muslim veil by their religious sect or family member.

Therefore when both is in conflict Gender equality must be become a priority over religon freedom.

Someone have to draw a line in defense of gender equality vs reglious freedom wearing a muslim veil !
Thank god of Quebec having the balls to take on the fucking muslem veil mentally as compare to rest of provincal qovernment or federal government who are too chicken to take on the muslim reglious fantaic!
See Quebec Bill 92 ---Quebec veil law.
Premier Jean Charest told a news conference that the province was drawing a line in "defense of gender equality" and secular public institutions. "This is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told a news conference.

All your irrelevant BS comes down to: Ban the veil because women are forced to wear it. Why not just ban forcing anything on women, or men? Because we have such laws and they musn't be working, because women are still wearing niqabs? So no one can choose a niqab? We must force them not to wear it?

Your argument would need at least a single woman coming forward to complain that she needs such a law because she's being forced, and existing law hasn't worked. So far none have complained to my knowledge. Do you have any such evidence?

The fact that you couldn't even edit yourself to exclude the anti-muslim religious junk demonstrates that these laws aren't about women's rights even in your mind. Religious bigotry, pure and unadulterated.

It's about denying freedom to a selected, despised group in the name of 'Western freedom and tolerance'.

Pure BS. And BS in coloured headline weight type is just more, smellier BS.

BTW: Quebec has a long and nasty record of religious intolerance and persecution. Look up how Duplessis used the police against the Jehovah's Witnesses. That shameful and disgusting record is one of the reasons we have protection of religious freedom in the Charter. Unless They weaseled out by their pro forma use of the notwithstanding clause to deny the Charter to their citizens, I'd expect Quebec to face a constitutional challenge on this one.

And, PornAddict, you do know that all porn—far less racy than Playboy—condoms and all birth control were banned until the sixties for the same sort of unfounded 'reasons' you've advanced for your religious ban, don't you? With that handle you should.

And society didn't collapse.

 

[blackrock13]

All your irrelevant BS comes down to: Ban the veil because women are forced to wear it. Why not just ban forcing anything on women, or men?

Your argument would need at least a single woman coming forward to complain that she needs such a law because she's being forced. So far none have complained to my knowledge. Do you have any such evidence?


The fact that you couldn't even edit yourself to exclude the anti-muslim religious junk demonstrates that this law isn't about women's rights even in your mind.

It's about denying freedom to a selected, despised group in the name of 'Western freedom and tolerance'.

Pure BS. And BS in coloured headline weight type is just more, smellier BS.

OJ;

He's new. He'll learn there are ways to yell and vent and ways not to and big brightly coloured type all over the freakin' post in not the way.

 

[Tokyo Heights]

Still i would say that every country should have Tolerance, and respect the beliefs of different religions, and respect the freedom of speach, & freedom to wear whatever one person's beliefs, and not impose their authority what so ever on any human being, & make this world a better place to live and let live in harmony, peace, love, & respect.

 

[PornAddict]

All your irrelevant BS comes down to: Ban the veil because women are forced to wear it. Why not just ban forcing anything on women, or men? Because we have such laws and they musn't be working, because women are still wearing niqabs? So no one can choose a niqab? We must force them not to wear it?

Your argument would need at least a single woman coming forward to complain that she needs such a law because she's being forced, and existing law hasn't worked. So far none have complained to my knowledge. Do you have any such evidence?..........And society didn't collapse.

Here are some examples reglious freedom infringes Gender rights :


* Forced to wearing a muslim veil , ( Canadian Father Kills His Daughter For Not Wearing A Hijab)
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23905-canada-islam



* Female circumcision: A critical appraisal
... The main reasons for approval were 'tradition' and 'religion' illustrating the strength of social influence ... pain and physical damage, even death, that circumcision has caused so many women and children ..
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=r...=1&oi=scholart

Go read the The Constitution Act, 1982, which includes te Charter of Rights and Freedoms,


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
Section 28, which states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women.


Old jones your arguement is soo fulll of it!!
Government have to protect the defenseless and the vulnerable!!!

BTW: Quebec has a long and nasty record of religious intolerance and persecution. Look up how Duplessis used the police against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you quote ancient history of abuse from Quebec...I can quote ancient history of governments ( Britian, USA, Spain, etc)) abuses example white people who brought in slavery , ( USA killing the American Indian , Canadian government starving the First Nation, etc) Canadian government on the treatement chinese when building the railroad across Canada. For every mile of railroad built 1 chinese die. Chinese Head Tax. Japanese treatment in British Columbia during world war II by the Federal and British Columbia provincial government. Canadian Japanese are put into confindment camps.. Canadian Japanase property confiscated and auctiion off to the Canadian publiic.

Old jone, Are you a muslum fantaics ??? Do you worship the Muslim Taliban? Are you a extremely lefties wing nuts? Why don't you go live in Saudi Arabia and talk to the women who have to live there and forced to wear a veil...then come back here and see if your belief will remain the same as before!

 

[oldjones]

Years ago a comic said, "Your freedom to wear that lime-green pantsuit stops at my eyes." Back then it was funny, but with these anti-veil laws, it's quite clear many who should know better think that's a serious and respectable thing to say. And they're not embarrased to pass laws that force their views on others, while children starve, countries go bankrupt and their greedy pirate buddies rape the environment to poison all our futures.

You're right on Tokyo Heights. But it's a cruel joke they're telling us.

 

[K Douglas]

While not a fan of the Islamic religion in general, I don't agree with this law. It smacks of racism and religion bashing to me. Where is the right to freedom of expression and religion? We assume that all women who wear the hijab (or even the burqa) don't do so of their own valition. That is false. They do so out of respect to their religion or to their family. Whether we think that is right is irrelevant. Of course at the same time I support the right of these women to choose not to wear these garments.

At the same time if the burqa conflicts with safety or security concerns (i.e. operating a motor vehicle or in an instance requiring to reveal identity) then I think that trumps the freedom of expression/religious belief argument.

 

[wet_suit_one]

Charter arguments don't apply. The Charter binds the government. Not individuals.

Also, for all you supporters, what about a woman who freely chooses to wear the veil. This law says she can't. That is freedom? That is justice? I don't think so, but carry on with your Islamophobia and all its resultant sequelae... Sad, but so very human...

 

[PornAddict]

Charter arguments don't apply. The Charter binds the government. Not individuals.

Also, for all you supporters, what about a woman who freely chooses to wear the veil. This law says she can't. That is freedom? That is justice? I don't think so, but carry on with your Islamophobia and all its resultant sequelae... Sad, but so very human...

Bullshit!!!! .... The Charter arguement applies here!
Also the charter is there to protect the defenseless and the vulnerable!!!
Take it to the Supreme Court of Canada and get a offical ruling!! In regard to reglious freedom infringes Gender's rights. Which take precedent?? Gender rights or Reglious right?? I will bet you Gender's right will take precedent over freedom of Religion.

 

[STASH]

A. I mean, c'mon, guys. The only "security issue" or "liberating" that's going on here is that most of you fellas don't like Muslims and are gloating at the fact that they're getting kicked in the nuts in Belgium.

Fucking right Bud....now you got the idea

Now that you understand us......."get off my lawn "

 

[STASH]

Charter arguments don't apply. The Charter binds the government. Not individuals.

Also, for all you supporters, what about a woman who freely chooses to wear the veil. This law says she can't. That is freedom? That is justice? I don't think so, but carry on with your Islamophobia and all its resultant sequelae... Sad, but so very human...

We don't give a flying fuck what you think of us. They get what they deserve

 

[Never Compromised]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

It is very easy to have laws about "freedoms" when there is a general hegemony and the majority are of the same basic background. But the true measure of the depths of someone's views comes when the rights you wish for yourself are demanded by those outside the group.

Freedom to choose is just that, and if you don't like the choices someone else makes, it is not up to you to decry how those choices are evil. Please do not go around bitching about how evil it is in Saudi Arabia that you have to follow the mores of a religious society and how awful it is that you can't practise your religions beliefs there, then turn around and force you beliefs on someone here. Being "free" means that others are free AS WELL to make their own choices.

Freedom of religion means that you simply must grant the same rights and freedoms to others as you would want them for yourself. Where there is a clash between freedom and security, it is a difficult decision to make about which is more important. IMHO, if women wish to dress the way that they want, they should. I don't remember anyone on this board complaining that women were being hard done by when the court ruled that women could CHOSE to go topless where men were topless, so why should you bitch when women chose to cover up?

Obviously there must be acceptance on the side of the religious individuals as well. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If you want to drive, you have to follow the rules which means a photo ID and the probability that you will have to show your face to police if stopped. If you want to travel internationally, a photo ID and showing your face to the customs people. But this is a choice that the religious must make for themselves. They must decide whether it is more important to not show the face ever, under any circumstances or if they want to drive or travel. But it is not my right or duty to tell them which they must choose.

A test of how deeply you are committed to the notion of freedom is very simple, would you allow others the same freedoms you enjoy. And if you decide that you are only comfortable offering freedoms to those that choose what you are comfortable with, then you are actually a fascist.

What sets apart Western liberal democratic thought from all others is the underlying principal that everyone is free to choose. If we start limited the religious choice of others, then we lose what makes us what we are, and we simply become another despotic regime, no better than China or Saudi Arabia.

And yes, I have been to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, as well as to Europe and parts of Central America. Not having freedom makes you appreciate the gift that freedom truly is. But as Spiderman says, with great gifts/power comes great responsibility.

 

[oldjones]

Any asshole—see posts above—can defend freedom for opinions and actions he agrees with: Hitler, Stalin and Mao did it all the time. Betcha STASH does too. But if you believe in freedom and democracy you defend the opinions and actions you don't agree with. That's why democracy is so scarce in the world; it's tough. Actions like Belgium's make it scarcer.

In the words attributed to Voltaire. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[slowandeasy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...5/Belgium-set-European-country-ban-burka.html

............... and France is soon to follow

I agree with this law.

For the following reasons:
The burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of a western emancipated and free society that respects the rights of all.

I am sure someone here will call me a racist or whatever.

But I applaud this decision by the Belgian government and only hope and wait for the day Canada will do the same.

I would take it one step further, and say that all sexy women should wear nothing but bra and panties.. in the interest of security of course.

dj1470, I strongly believe that these women who wear the full covering, and those who insist that women cover themselves are living in the dark ages. HOWEVER, I am not sure that forcing them to remove them is the way to change their views. Personally, I think that when someone immigrates to another country/society, they should be willing to adopt their culture/religion to some degree. One part of me says that those who do not want to adopt should just leave... but forcing them to change is pretty draconian

 

[slowandeasy]

It is their country so they can set the rules. When in Belgium and France do as the Belgian and the French do. If you don't like, don't go. After all, when a White blue eye blonde Australian woman goes to Saudi Arabia she wears a scarf. When you go to Dubai, you don't kiss your wife while on the beach.

Ummm.. some of those white blue eyed people were having sex on the beach (not shooters) in Saudi a while ago, but your point is valid.

 

[oldjones]

Bullshit!!!! .... The Charter arguement applies here!
Also the charter is there to protect the defenseless and the vulnerable!!!
Take it to the Supreme Court of Canada and get a offical ruling!! In regard to reglious freedom infringes Gender's rights. Which take precedent?? Gender rights or Reglious right?? I will bet you Gender's right will take precedent over freedom of Religion.

And we'll f___ing well force you to be 'free' —genderwise— to express your religion the way we decide, whether you like it or not.

You haven't quoted a single woman who says her gender rights have been trampled by anyone's religious rights or beliefs. So stop with the silly religion vs. gender thing.

The only rights being trampled and denied are the ones Quebec Belgium and France are grinding into the dirt of their petty prejudiced minds. And eventually, I am sure an individual will challenge the indefensible Quebec law and it will lose in the Supreme Court. What a useless waste of time and money, and how degrading for our reputation as a democratic people.

Now a law that simply provided for specific identity needs, or that set out places and times where face coverings were prohibited as security risks, that might fly. But as the Bigots Above have made clear, this is about Anti-Islam. Nothing to do with the excuses they've propped up to make it look respectable.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

That's why this is evil stuff.

 

[torontojohn]

I'd prefer a law against hiding your identity - oh wait, we already have one. Wearing a disguise in the commission of a crime is an offense.