‘Muslim Patrol’ vigilantes forcing ‘people to stop drinking and women to cover up’ in London

[polishgenius]

It comes from reading their papers every day, and watching their TV.

The Burka ban and had next to no freedom of expression defenders on the left or right, and no support from any political party. The only party opposing the Hijab ban in schools was Lutte Ouvriere, a Trotskyist outfit that gets beween 5-8% of the vote. Even they believed that the Hijab was a problem, but that the consequences of the ban would increase female subjugation. No serious consideration seems to have been given to the idea a hijab or burqa might be a positive choice by a woman.

This situation is unimaginable in the UK or the US, and almost anywhere in the EU. It's not so much the fact people suggest this kind of ban that is weird, but the unaninmity of the support for it, and the reasons behind them.

While I can't speak for personal experience or anything, the French had a march in Paris the other day where 100,000+ people turned up to march against gay marriage. While I'm sure similar amounts of people oppose it in England and probably in America, here at least I can't imagine those kinds of numbers being shameless enough to do a public rally against it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Speaking as a European who is both from an immigrant family myself, and knows many people who are either immigrants or the children of immigrants from various places:

You're full of shit.

Thanks for reminding me. As another thread reminds us, I don't do that right either. My grandparents were immigrants. None of them ever remotely considered forcing their beliefs, traditions or mode of living on anyone!

[polishgenius]

None of them ever remotely considered forcing their beliefs, traditions or mode of living on anyone!

But they must have done. They're immigrants. I haven't done the research to prove it, but I suspect that all of them did exactly that.

[mormont]

That isn't nice. I said I hadn't researched it enough to prove. I didn't say I hadn't researched it at all.

No. But I'm prepared to bet you haven't actually researched it at all. (Reading a few Daily Mail editorials doesn't count as research, just in case you were wondering.)

also, "immigrant populations", is misleading. In recent years, it is always parts of the same population.

Again with the question-begging. (You're actually habitual with this, so it comes as no surprise.) 'It' has not been established as a thing that is happening at all: we are not yet at the point where you can even discuss who is doing 'it'.

Assuming that if, in a given population, there are a certain number of people who openly believe something, that there are not an additional number who believe the same thing, but aren't revealing it openly, would be illogical.

Even granting that this was true (and it's actually rather arguable), that additional number may of course be statistically insignificant in terms of the whole population.

It really appears that you're only interested in making assumptions that fit your 'suspicions' (or prejudices, to give them their proper name) rather than actually establishing the facts.

[awesome possum]

Thanks for reminding me. As another thread reminds us, I don't do that right either. My grandparents were immigrants. None of them ever remotely considered forcing their beliefs, traditions or mode of living on anyone!

So they didn't teach you and your parents their beliefs or traditions?

[Lyanna Stark]

That isn't nice. I said I hadn't researched it enough to prove. I didn't say I hadn't researched it at all. Assuming that if, in a given population, there are a certain number of people who openly believe something, that there are not an additional number who believe the same thing, but aren't revealing it openly, would be illogical.

Well then, get that research out here. Insinuating that I am being rude for asking a completely relevant question is also rather laughable.

So people in schools can't wear crosses or hijabs? How is that religious freedom? That's basically the opposite.

Nope, it's secularism, or like my dear old father likes to say "freedom from religion". People can be as religious as they want. In their spare time.

EDIT: sodding phone making weird changes

[Winter's Knight]

My understanding was that people in government schools are not allowed to display symbols of religion?

[Slick Mongoose]

I have a strange urge to start a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" patrol... :unsure:

[Castel]

My understanding was that people in government schools are not allowed to display symbols of religion?

Yes, I assume the logic is to stop things like those silly stories you hear about the Pledge of Allegiance and people getting shit for not saying something so pointless.

But still, I don't see why you can't have regulations for your teachers and not enforce uniform secularism on the people at school because they wear innocuous religious items, especially when they're religion demands it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

@mormont,

I guess that rules out Fox News and Jihad Watch, as well. Attacking sources rather than disproving what they say?

@awesome possum,

teach =/= force.

[Castel]

teach =/= force.

That really, really depends. As a child can you opt out of your cultural teachings? That's dubious at best.

[str8 outta Old Town]

Motorcycle helmets certainly can be: for example many shops require people to take them off before entering them, and someone who insisted on wearing them in daily life would be considered odd, at the least.

Most countries have no ban whatsoever on covering faces, if the problem is recognition, fancy dress, clowns and beards should probably be outlawed, as well as motorbike helmets and balaklavas. But nobody cared in France or anywhere else until Muslim women wearing the niqab became more common. Then what had always been accepted became suddenly unacceptable.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Well then, get that research out here. Insinuating that you am being rude for asking a completely relevant question is also rather laughable.

Forgive me for pointing out a delightful typo.

Actually, I never said it was rude, only that it wasn't nice. I hadn't "admitted" what you claimed I had.

[Robin Of House Hill]

That really, really depends. As a child can you opt out of your cultural teachings? That's dubious at best.

Not only could I, but I did.

[Frey Buffet]

Oh wow, I have just got home from sitting a social geography exam on this very topic.

Nope, it's secularism, or like my dear old father likes to say "freedom from religion". People can be as religious as they want. In their spare time.

Yep! It all goes back to the French Revolution. The church and the state should not influence each other, so the state can't impose a certain religion and religion can't impose itself on French citizens through the state - it's called laïcité. :)

So, based on this, French citizens are to keep any ethnic identities or religious practices outside of the public eye.

Personally, I don't like that women are told to cover up and keep their modesty by men, in order to protect them from...men.

Maybe men should wear blindfolds? Then there would be no need for the niqab. :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SM,

I have a strange urge to start a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" patrol... :unsure:

Don't Pastafarians publicly advocate a return to piracy to combat global warming?

[Castel]

Not only could I, but I did.

I was speaking in a general sense. In my experience children are swept up with their parent's culture.The more liberal the parents the more chance they have of breaking through, true, but a lot of parents are quite good at pushing their kids into their culture

Personally, I don't like that women are told to cover up and keep their modesty by men, in order to protect them from...men.

So...you can step on people's religion to protect them from themselves? A bit patronizing no?

And besides, I thought that this was about protecting secularism not attacking one particular religion, no matter how noble the goal...Right? :dunno:

[Robin Of House Hill]

For the record, that second quote is not mine.

[polishgenius]

Yep! It all goes back to the French Revolution. The church and the state should not influence each other, so the state can't impose a certain religion and religion can't impose itself on French citizens through the state - it's called laïcité. :)

So, based on this, French citizens are to keep any ethnic identities or religious practices outside of the public eye.

I can't imagine how mentally fragile you have to be to think that someone displaying their religion in public is, in itself, somehow an imposition.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I don't know what the mental compulsion to display ones religious affiliation is, unless it is to say, I am better than you".