Canada to join Talebans in enforcing dress code on women

[Ed Anger]

And this isn't fucking Rosetta Stone, Ideologue.   

[Grallon]

I think I've aged out of the system, Gral.

Of course you're too old for sex - I was referring to practicing french.   




G.

[grumbler]

does everything happening in a classroom needs to be a provincial law?  I don't know, tell me, is there a law that says you must be in class when the bell rings? :roll:

Dude, it was your analogy! 

You compared requiring the removal of the veil in the classroom (a matter of law, since it involved, according to you, "empowering state agents to  enforce dress codes and bar the education of women") with removing caps and hats (also a matter of law, if the analogy isn't some intellectually dishonest bullshit you made up to support an otherwise untenable position.

[viper37]

I'm not really sure why you feel like you're the best at reaching into men's (well in this case women's) hearts.  Why are you so confident that these women must be adopted said veils because they are forced to and not because they choose to?

because even moderate muslim ask the government not to tolerate this?  Because there are multiple testimonies to the effect that the veil is imposed?  Because as you can see in muslim countries, barely any women wear a weil until islamists come to power?  It would be a strange coincidence that all these women suddenly feel they must be closer to God just when a Taleban like faction comes to power.

Islamists are on the war path, and they're trying to destroy western liberalism.  It has to be made clear to them, that once they come here, they leave that part of their life behind and adapt to the western civilization and its freedoms.  Else, they go elsewhere.

Afaik, the US doesn't even allow a women to testify while covered.  Apparently, this whole idea that you would have an undeniable right to weir a veil everywhere, anytime has its limits in a country wich prides itself in its individual freedoms.  Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...

[viper37]

C'est bien; ils sont des armes.  Et leurs turbans?

Le turban n'est pas un problème à l'Assemblée Nationale, mais à l'école, ou au tribunal, ils doivent l'enlever.

Literally from English: "Porquoi donnez-vous une merde sur chapeaux?"  I thought I was using "foutre" right, but maybe not.

It's considered impolite to wear a hat inside most places.

[viper37]

Dude, it was your analogy! 

You implied it was a law, as if every single rule out there has to be a written law in the civil or criminal code.

You compared requiring the removal of the veil in the classroom (a matter of law, since it involved, according to you, "empowering state agents to  enforce dress codes and bar the education of women") with removing caps and hats (also a matter of law, if the analogy isn't some intellectually dishonest bullshit you made up to support an otherwise untenable position.

A policy becomes law when people stop respecting it based on their religious rights.
And no women is barred from education in Quebec.  You should check your facts.

[garbon]

because even moderate muslim ask the government not to tolerate this?  Because there are multiple testimonies to the effect that the veil is imposed?  Because as you can see in muslim countries, barely any women wear a weil until islamists come to power?  It would be a strange coincidence that all these women suddenly feel they must be closer to God just when a Taleban like faction comes to power.

I thought we were talking about Quebec where women want to wear veils. Are Islamists in power in Quebec?

Islamists are on the war path, and they're trying to destroy western liberalism.  It has to be made clear to them, that once they come here, they leave that part of their life behind and adapt to the western civilization and its freedoms.  Else, they go elsewhere.

Sorry but I find it hard to buy that narrative. I see women walking around in veils here in New York and I doubt they are trying to destroy the prevailing liberalism of the city.

Afaik, the US doesn't even allow a women to testify while covered.  Apparently, this whole idea that you would have an undeniable right to weir a veil everywhere, anytime has its limits in a country wich prides itself in its individual freedoms.  Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...

But you're talking about different things. There is a good argument as to why we'd want to be able to see who is testifying. There isn't really a compelling argument that we need to see who is in a class room - although I could see some sort of security check at the entrance of a school to make sure that random individuals aren't sneaking into a school under the cover of a veil.

[Ideologue]

It's considered impolite to wear a hat inside most places.

Le porte de chapeaux est considere impoli en America aussi.  Un peu.  Je n'ai pas ete autorise a porter un chapeau en ecole, comme je me souviens.  Je n'aimais ca alors, je ne l'aime pas aujourd'hui.  Incivilites floue suels n'est pas une raison suffisante pour interdire une practique, IMO.  Comme la cuillette de votre noz en publique, ou porter blanc apres le Labor Day.

Le turban n'est pas un problème à l'Assemblée Nationale, mais à l'école, ou au tribunal, ils doivent l'enlever.

Mais pourquoi?  Qui est blesse?  Simples signes de l'heritage culturel ne sont pas plus nocifs en eux-memes d'un T-shirt.

Je pense que le mieux de leur donner la liberte d'ete stupide.  Ils finnesent par fondre da la pot--leur point de fusion est beaucoup plus faible.

Au moins, tant que la civilisation occidentale peut plausiblement pretendre superiorite.

But "superiority" is setting the bar pretty low, given we're talking about Islamoids.

[Ideologue]

P.S.: if you amend your plan so that no women can wear T-shirts either, I am fully on board.

[Grallon]

... Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...

Why do you even bother Vip?  At this point, between the bad faith, the theatrics and the reflexive posturing, it is virtually impossible to discuss anything on this board.

They say we are racists - then we are racists; they say we are fascists - then so are we!  Who cares what they think anyway?  It's not like your arguing will change one iota of their opinion.

You've got to practice detachment.




G.

[garbon]

... Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...

Why do you even bother Vip?  At this point, between the bad faith, the theatrics and the reflexive posturing, it is virtually impossible to discuss anything on this board.

They say we are racists - then we are racists; they say we are fascists - then so are we!  Who cares what they think anyway?  It's not like your arguing will change one iota of their opinion.

You've got to practice detachment.




G.

I don't remember calling viper a racist.

[Ideologue]

I don't think you're racists.  I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).

Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb).  Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.

[garbon]

I don't think you're racists.  I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).

Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb).  Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.

+1

[Grey Fox]

Ide.

Viper is feminine.

So, La viper 37

[Grallon]

I don't think you're racists.  I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).

Most people aren't in the habit of tolerating toxic substances within their organisms.





G.