Pat Condell

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, you win. Don't you have a research paper to do?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The statement by a human rights advocate reads;
"Rights, equality and respect are for people not religions or beliefs." by Maryam Namazie

You know, that's a good thought. If "rights, equality and respect" are afforded everyone, then their religion/beliefs are their own business and none of mine.
But then again, if they want to behead me for being an infidel, it becomes my business... quickly.

[DanaC]

*grins* ummm....yeah.

[DanaC]

Only if they have the means and opportunity to do it :P

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just them wanting to, should make me vigilant that they don't get the means and opportunity.




Ah, preemptive strike... that's it, nuke 'em... and the whales too!

We remain vigilant by using the legal, intel (and military -outside of the borders) tools available.

If those tools need to be extended, it should not be at the expense of personal freedoms, liberties and protections that are at the very foundation of western democracy.

[TheMercenary]

Since 9/11 the rules in this country changed and they should have. We will lose some personal freedoms for the sake of security. That is just a new fact of life. Our inability to restrict certain freedoms is what got us into much of this mess in the first place.

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Since 9/11 the rules in this country changed and they should have. We will lose some personal freedoms for the sake of security. That is just a new fact of life. Our inability to restrict certain freedoms is what got us into much of this mess in the first place.

9/11 happened do to an intelligence failure, furthermore, the lose of some of these freedoms haven't stopped other attacks such as the DC sniper or the underwear bomber.

[classicman]

Jean-François Copé, parliamentary leader of President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP group, said the 750 euro fine would apply to anyone whose face is "fully covered in public".

Mr Copé insists the law is based on public safety and sexual equality considerations and does not restrict religious practices.

"We spoke to religious and secular figures who all confirmed [the burka] was not a religious prescription. Wearing the full body veil is about extremists who want to test the republic," he said.

"The burka is a prison for women and has no place in the French Republic. But an ad hoc law would not have the anticipated effect," said their spokesman, Benoît Hamon.

Jean-Marie Le Pen, the veteran leader of the far-Right National Front, said a ban was unnecessary as it is already "forbidden to walk the streets and public spaces with a mask on".

Interior ministry figures suggest that around 2,000 women in France wear full Muslim dress in public.

France passed a law in 2004 banning students and staff from wearing "conspicuous" religious symbols in schools – including veils – to defend secularism.

In September a French mother was banned from wearing a full-body "burkini" bathing suit at her local swimming pool. She was told it contravened hygiene regulations but pledged to take her local council to court, saying the decision was political.

And look who is vehemently opposed to it...

In July, al-Qaeda leaders in north African issued a call to arms against France on an Islamic extremist website.

"We will seek dreadful revenge on France by all means at our disposal, for the honour of our daughters and sisters," they warned.

No surprise there

Some Muslims may consider the Burka "a prison" for women...so do I. There are also many Christians and Jews who oppose the more restrictive practices of their extreme orthodoxies.

The courts can also determine if any law has an adverse impact on one segment of society more than society as a whole. either intended or not.

Im not defending burkas. I think the practice is archaic. I am defending religious freedom as practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers who pose no security threat.

ps... Jean-Marie Le Pen (and the extremist National Front Party) is not someone I would ever quote or want to be associated with in any way...but thats just me.

[TheMercenary]

Mr Copé insists the law is based on public safety and sexual equality considerations and does not restrict religious practices.

"We spoke to religious and secular figures who all confirmed [the burka] was not a religious prescription. Wearing the full body veil is about extremists who want to test the republic," he said.

I suspect there is more to it than that but it makes good sense for the sake of security. The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...it makes good sense for the sake of security.

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Redux

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?
.

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

... and underpants?

[perv]I would support that[/perv]

:p

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

At one point (and probably still), DC public school kids had to have transparent backpacks.