My Mistake

sassy wrote:Lets see how much Didge has morphed into Smelly over the last few months.

This was back in May:

Fluffy Bunny Question
 
What about the women who are forced to wear the Burqa in this country,(I know some wish to wear it and it is their choice but this is not true for all Muslim ladies) It is a sheet,it is a symbol of repression and control and it is impractical.Women in this so called civilised day and age should not be forced to wear sheets on the basis that a man may glance in their direction.
 
Didge Answer

Really forced to wear? Again nobody should be forced to wear anything the amount of women that wear this is so small it is a something that again Muslims should teach is not part of Islam,  but you are again using a small amount of Muslims to promote a view of a claim to a much bigger problem which does not tally up to your claims. What about those who wish to wear, being as your are all for women's rights, why do you not back those who chose to have the right to wear one? You go off what you call as civilized, but to some women who wear this, it has nothing to do with anything more than showing respect to their faith, their choice, even if I think myself it is not good for communication. You do not though use something so small as to promote a poor argument what you do is teach and show a more approachable to way to help bring about change, as forcing people to change, has the opposite affect



http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96959




From later on in the thread:



Didge wrote:


The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism, where again to a Muslim a drone attack that kills civilians would also be seen as terrorism, as I am sure if you had drone attacks here to oust terrorists, that killed civilians you would be saying the same thing and as seen many people do not have a problem with civilians being killed to get terrorists. It has been concluded that the whole Iraq war has driven extremism in this country but you are not even concerned over that, you wish to promote an absurd view over Islam, when in every Terrorist action the causes behind them have been over events, like troops in Ira for example, deaths to civilians etc showing you have not the first clue understanding what creates terrorism in the first place, you only see through your eyes of hatred.
It is down to many Muslims to tackle extremism, but it is very much something that the West has very much increased those to their cause with their policies.  


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96928

Maybe that's why he keeps changing his name?

Even I had to log back in to say: HA HA!

When Smelly returned last time, he blessed Didge as his protege. I wish Mentor was here too, he would be so proud.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:Lets see how much Didge has morphed into Smelly over the last few months.

This was back in May:

Fluffy Bunny Question
 
What about the women who are forced to wear the Burqa in this country,(I know some wish to wear it and it is their choice but this is not true for all Muslim ladies) It is a sheet,it is a symbol of repression and control and it is impractical.Women in this so called civilised day and age should not be forced to wear sheets on the basis that a man may glance in their direction.
 
Didge Answer

Really forced to wear? Again nobody should be forced to wear anything the amount of women that wear this is so small it is a something that again Muslims should teach is not part of Islam,  but you are again using a small amount of Muslims to promote a view of a claim to a much bigger problem which does not tally up to your claims. What about those who wish to wear, being as your are all for women's rights, why do you not back those who chose to have the right to wear one? You go off what you call as civilized, but to some women who wear this, it has nothing to do with anything more than showing respect to their faith, their choice, even if I think myself it is not good for communication. You do not though use something so small as to promote a poor argument what you do is teach and show a more approachable to way to help bring about change, as forcing people to change, has the opposite affect



http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96959




From later on in the thread:



Didge wrote:


The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism, where again to a Muslim a drone attack that kills civilians would also be seen as terrorism, as I am sure if you had drone attacks here to oust terrorists, that killed civilians you would be saying the same thing and as seen many people do not have a problem with civilians being killed to get terrorists. It has been concluded that the whole Iraq war has driven extremism in this country but you are not even concerned over that, you wish to promote an absurd view over Islam, when in every Terrorist action the causes behind them have been over events, like troops in Ira for example, deaths to civilians etc showing you have not the first clue understanding what creates terrorism in the first place, you only see through your eyes of hatred.
It is down to many Muslims to tackle extremism, but it is very much something that the West has very much increased those to their cause with their policies.  


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4682-let-s-be-honest-about-britain-s-islamophobia#96928

Maybe that's why he keeps changing his name?

Even I had to log back in to say: HA HA!

When Smelly returned last time, he blessed Didge as his protege. I wish Mentor was here too, he would be so proud.

Hilarious , this all the two little brats can come up with.

Again I have seen what is fundementally wrong and neither can show a comparrison to smelly

Now I am not the one who wished I went to israel to watch see me burn, now that is something smelly would say and proves you are quite the vile extremist little twat who cowers now it seems lol

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Absolutely right. The issue here is dress -- not rape, abuse, etc. People have a fundamental right to their own beliefs and if that extends to dress, so be it.

If a person is being brainwashed, no dress law is going to help stop that - - any more than taking an aspirin would cure a broken bone.

Oh for fuck sakes the regressive stikes again, its about everything it reoresents in the form of dress which subjucates women. So you have no problem with people being taught extreme beliefs, that classify women as subservant to men, which is what is fundementally is. In other words that makes you a backer of sexism.
This is about the rights of women being fundementally denied through the ignorance of religion.
Only a regressive would defend sexism
I mean there are many Muslims trying progress Islam topday and it does not need halfwits like you ensuring it stays back in the 7th century, when you should be supporting the reformers.
Athiest? Like fuck you are, you bend over to any belief even if it means the discrmination of people.
Its more thann a dress but a symbol of what that dress represents.
The worst aspect of your appeasement is you have given naff all consideration to those forced to wear this, only those brainwashed into thinking they need to wear when there is no part of Islam which says that they should. You place those forced to wear thus of no importance and would rather they continue to suffer just so you can appease the ones brainwashed.
That just shows why people are getting more and more sick and tired of the outright stuopidity of the left because that fundementally shows you are no champion against an injustice.

Anyway bumped up for ben after the poor attempt by the two little brats to derail the thread ,lol

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sassy wrote:Les, you do realise the route you are going down here?  Basically what you are saying to Muslim women is 'If you chose to wear a burqua, you have to pass our test, we don't trust you to be strong enough to make up your own minds, you have to tell us in minute detail why, and if we don't think that is good enough, we'll still pressurise you not to wear it, whatever you think'.

Many, many westernised, highly educated Muslim women have explained why they wear it, but why the hell should they?  You don't think Muslim women are as strong as non-Muslim women?  You have no right to force them to explain, anymore than we have the right to force girls to explain when they go out with their skirts up to their bums and their tits hanging out, and in my view, they are being pressurised both by men and by the 'glamour' expections, to make themselves look like total tarts, but that is their business, not mine.

If a Muslim woman is being abused in ANY way, the same laws apply to her treatment in this country, as apply to any other women's treatment, or mens for that matter.

Absolutely right. The issue here is dress -- not rape, abuse, etc. People have a fundamental right to their own beliefs and if that extends to dress, so be it.

If a person is being brainwashed, no dress law is going to help stop that - - any more than taking an aspirin would cure a broken bone.

Oh for fuck sakes the regressive stikes again, its about everything it reoresents in the form of dress which subjucates women. So you have no problem with people being taught extreme beliefs, that classify women as subservant to men, which is what is fundementally is. In other words that makes you a backer of sexism.
This is about the rights of women being fundementally denied through the ignorance of religion.
Only a regressive would defend sexism
I mean there are many Muslims trying progress Islam topday and it does not need halfwits like you ensuring it stays back in the 7th century, when you should be supporting the reformers.
Athiest? Like fuck you are, you bend over to any belief even if it means the discrmination of people.
Its more thann a dress but a symbol of what that dress represents.
The worst aspect of your appeasement is you have given naff all consideration to those forced to wear this, only those brainwashed into thinking they need to wear when there is no part of Islam which says that they should. You place those forced to wear thus of no importance and would rather they continue to suffer just so you can appease the ones brainwashed.
That just shows why people are getting more and more sick and tired of the outright stuopidity of the left because that fundementally shows you are no champion against an injustice.

Try again when you can be a little less emotional about this, right now you’re pretty much out of control.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Oh for fuck sakes the regressive stikes again, its about everything it reoresents in the form of dress which subjucates women. So you have no problem with people being taught extreme beliefs, that classify women as subservant to men, which is what is fundementally is. In other words that makes you a backer of sexism.
This is about the rights of women being fundementally denied through the ignorance of religion.
Only a regressive would defend sexism
I mean there are many Muslims trying progress Islam topday and it does not need halfwits like you ensuring it stays back in the 7th century, when you should be supporting the reformers.
Athiest? Like fuck you are, you bend over to any belief even if it means the discrmination of people.
Its more thann a dress but a symbol of what that dress represents.
The worst aspect of your appeasement is you have given naff all consideration to those forced to wear this, only those brainwashed into thinking they need to wear when there is no part of Islam which says that they should. You place those forced to wear thus of no importance and would rather they continue to suffer just so you can appease the ones brainwashed.
That just shows why people are getting more and more sick and tired of the outright stuopidity of the left because that fundementally shows you are no champion against an injustice.

Try again when you can be a little less emotional about this, right now you’re pretty much out of control.

Pathetic, I am well in control, I just do not pander to left wing idiots who wish to promote backwardness in the form of religious beliefs.
So thanks for the advice but I would get better off Donald Trump, which is about the worst advice I could get
Stop being a wet lefty and avoid the points and counter, if not your points have no reason

They frighten the horses, [and small children of English parents.]

Just imagine getting on a aeroplane with them dressed like that.

Would you question it?????

nicko wrote:They frighten the horses,    [and small children of English parents.]

I have blue eyes. I nearly started a panic in a Rabat Morocco market, when a chap spied me while driving by in a Taxi. They thought for sure I was the devil come to chase them down.

So, I at least know what it's like.

As umbrellas, they're depressing - just like burkas are depressing. I'm afraid that burkas scream "extremist" to me.

I get that feeling when I'm around a Catholic priest.



For me, there was always something villainous about them.

I'm not often around Catholic priests, so I wouldn't know.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not often around Catholic priests, so I wouldn't know.

Is that right? There's a retreat nearby where I live, in Marin County. We see them all the time.

If the women choose to wear that clothing of their own accord then that is their choice. I don't like to see it myself but it's not for me to decide what they wear.

Leave them alone.

Irn Bru wrote:If the women choose to wear that clothing of their own accord then that is their choice. I don't like to see it myself but it's not for me to decide what they wear.

Leave them alone.

Has someone assaulted them and tried to rip off their burkas then?

Irn Bru wrote:If the women choose to wear that clothing of their own accord then that is their choice. I don't like to see it myself but it's not for me to decide what they wear.

Leave them alone.

So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:If the women choose to wear that clothing of their own accord then that is their choice. I don't like to see it myself but it's not for me to decide what they wear.

Leave them alone.

Has someone assaulted them and tried to rip off their burkas then?

Actually Yes.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Has someone assaulted them and tried to rip off their burkas then?

Actually Yes.

And many have been assulated by being forced to wear something they do not wish to.
What of the fact their pleas fall on deaf ears?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:If the women choose to wear that clothing of their own accord then that is their choice. I don't like to see it myself but it's not for me to decide what they wear.

Leave them alone.

So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

Eh? Sorry Didge, but I read on this thread what you had said and I thought we were on the same page as far as this is concerned. What is written by you previouslywere your words weren't they?

And I said 'if they choose to wear them of their own accord'. You must have missed that.

women in the UK who wear the hijab or other forms of veiling are still the most frequent victims of Islamophobic attacks.

In September, the Metropolitan Police released statistics showing what it deemed anti-Islam assaults had risen 70 percent in the past year, from 478 to 816. Of the victims about 60 percent were female, according to TellMAMA, an NGO that monitors Islamophobia in the UK.

About the same time these figures were released, footage was posted online of a Muslim teenage girl being  knocked unconscious by an attacker on a London street.

In June, a mother was attacked by a gang of women as she picked her children up from school, reportedly for "wearing a headscarf". The woman told the Evening Standard newspaper the three women "pulled my headscarf off and started punching and kicking me".

TellMAMA released a report last month that included interviews with victims of Islamophobia. The report did not include interviewees' last names.

"When I became identifiably Muslim, I got nasty looks, threats and abuse, and that's an everyday experience especially because I am a white British Muslim," Sara said. 
"When I suffer abuse in public, people walk off or stare… I was on my way to the shops and people shouted at me, 'Why don't we chop your head off?'… Anti-Muslim hate is normal," she said.

But it is not just verbal and physical attacks that women who wear the hijab in the UK face. Many, while never having been abused outright, say they are judged in their personal and professional lives for what they choose to wear.

Asma Khan, a doctoral candidate at the Centre for the Study of Islam in the UK at Cardiff University, told Al Jazeera she detected a difference in the way she was treated, depending on whether or not she was wearing a hijab.

"I don't wear the hijab day-to-day. In all honesty, this is probably partly because of the way in which this might be perceived by others," Khan said.
"I do, however, wear the hijab on occasion and I am struck by the difference in the way I feel that I am received in public. My everyday world becomes a much more strange and hostile place. I feel a lot more conscious in familiar surroundings, and feel that I am treated with a certain coldness and have to work harder to appear 'normal'."
Khan added her own findings indicate that second-generation British Muslim women may struggle to find work. "There appears to be a distinct 'Muslim penalty' with regard to employment and economic inactivity."

Having grown up in Britain in the 1980s, Khan said she became used to periodic backlashes against Muslims following certain world events.

The Cafe - The Dis-united Kingdom

Today there is a "constant Islamophobic hum" in the public sphere, partly caused by daily reporting on armed groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Boko Haram.

The idea that certain headline-making events can lead to spikes in Islamophobia is supported by TellMAMA's report, "We fear for our lives: offline and online experiences of anti-Muslim hostility", published this October.

"Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and Tunisia in 2015, and in Woolwich, southeast London where British Army soldier Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered in 2013, we have seen a sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks," the report stated.

"These incidents have occurred offline where mosques have been targeted, Muslim women have had their hijab [headscarf] or niqab [face veil] pulled off, Muslim men have been attacked, and racist graffiti has been scrawled against Muslim graves and properties.

"Moreover, there has been a spike in online anti-Muslim attacks where Muslims have been targeted by campaigns of cyber-bullying, cyber-harassment, cyber-incitement and threats of offline violence."

Despite mounting evidence that Islamophobia is becoming more common in the UK, Idrissi remains positive and confident she can use her new and unexpected fame to make a difference.

"I want to use modelling to get to a point where I can break down prejudices about hijab," said Idrissi.

"There are women who might be more highly qualified for a position, but because she wears a hijab people think she won't be qualified or capable… At the end of the day, this is a scarf on my head. It doesn't affect my brain."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/uk-bake-offs-hijabs-attacks-Muslim-women-151101075729549.html

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

Eh? Sorry Didge, but I read on this thread what you had said and I thought we were on the same page as far as this is concerned. What is written by you previouslywere your words weren't they?

And I said 'if they choose to wear them of their own accord'. You must have missed that.

My previous views were wrong as I once held views that conflicted with my liberal views, where when  I looked to the plight of the situation I was looking in error. Many times I listened to daft left wing pricks, who were also in error who constantly contradicted themselves as I once did.
Now you can continue to avoid my points or go back and answer them

I think they do choose to wear them - at least in this country. I still think they look like extremists.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think they do choose to wear them - at least in this country. I still think they look like extremists.

I'm sure you do, I think that says more about you than them.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think they do choose to wear them - at least in this country. I still think they look like extremists.

How are we too know if they choose?
Again this is not even required in Islam to cover the face and what this shows and you are right is an extremist form of Islam prevails in the form of this dress. As if you look at the sect of Islam that calls for this it is very extreme in its views.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think they do choose to wear them - at least in this country. I still think they look like extremists.

How are we too know if they choose?
Again this is not even required in Islam to cover the face and what this shows and you are right is an extremist form of Islam prevails in the form of this dress. As if you look at the sect of Islam that calls for this it is very extreme in its views.

I just think they do choose to wear them. They're often with men and children who wear normal clothes as well. It's all a bit weird IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

How are we too know if they choose?
Again this is not even required in Islam to cover the face and what this shows and you are right is an extremist form of Islam prevails in the form of this dress. As if you look at the sect of Islam that calls for this it is very extreme in its views.

I just think they do choose to wear them. They're often with men and children who wear normal clothes as well. It's all a bit weird IMO.

I have no doubt some do choose but some do certainly do not and even if chosen, it has been because they have been in doctrinated with such backward texts that views women as if they should cover themselves up.
Its barbaric and its place comes more from a cultural stance in Arabia than anything Islamic itself

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

Eh? Sorry Didge, but I read on this thread what you had said and I thought we were on the same page as far as this is concerned. What is written by you previouslywere your words weren't they?

And I said 'if they choose to wear them of their own accord'. You must have missed that.

My previous views were wrong as I once held views that conflicted with my liberal views, where when  I looked to the plight of the situation I was looking in error. Many times I listened to daft left wing pricks, who were also in error who constantly contradicted themselves as I once did.
Now you can continue to avoid my points or go back and answer them

Your previous views were wrong you say! So you have changed your mind again or is it not just a case of you arguing for the sake of arguing? How could you possibly change your mind on something so fundamental as a situation as that? What with all yout views on this in the past I find that incredible.

I answered your point by saying if they choose to wear it of their own accord. So what's your solution? Rip them off them? Ban them? What?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


My previous views were wrong as I once held views that conflicted with my liberal views, where when  I looked to the plight of the situation I was looking in error. Many times I listened to daft left wing pricks, who were also in error who constantly contradicted themselves as I once did.
Now you can continue to avoid my points or go back and answer them

Your previous views were wrong you say! So you have changed your mind again or is it not just a case of you arguing for the sake of arguing? How could you possibly change your mind on something so fundamental as a situation as that? What with all yout views on this in the past I find that incredible.

I answered your point by saying if they choose to wear it of their own accord. So what's your solution? Rip them off them? Ban them? What?

As explained already why my views conflicted with the well being and equality of others, on this and other incidences.
Not sure how many times I have explained this over many months which again this is all you seeem interested in.
Well that is your problem not mine and the point is those who truly care for the well being and equality of others would be very much standing as I do against such a barbaric practice. If religious doctrine can make people think they can be acceptable victims to wrongs, then we should fundementally chanllenge that.

So again last chance to answer the points or quite frankly you can crawl away you pathetic annoying jerk


So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


My previous views were wrong as I once held views that conflicted with my liberal views, where when  I looked to the plight of the situation I was looking in error. Many times I listened to daft left wing pricks, who were also in error who constantly contradicted themselves as I once did.
Now you can continue to avoid my points or go back and answer them

Your previous views were wrong you say! So you have changed your mind again or is it not just a case of you arguing for the sake of arguing? How could you possibly change your mind on something so fundamental as a situation as that? What with all yout views on this in the past I find that incredible.

I answered your point by saying if they choose to wear it of their own accord. So what's your solution? Rip them off them? Ban them? What?

As explained already why my views conflicted with the well being and equality of others, on this and other incidences.
Not sure how many times I have explained this over many months which again this is all you seeem interested in.
Well that is your problem not mine and the point is those who truly care for the well being and equality of others would be very much standing as I do against such a barbaric practice. If religious doctrine can make people think they can be acceptable victims to wrongs, then we should fundementally chanllenge that.

So again last chance to answer the points or quite frankly you can crawl away you pathetic annoying jerk


So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

What a load of bull, Didge

You really need to read what I said instead of making things up. I said - and I'll repeat it again 'if they choose to wear it of their own accord'

So what's you solution?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


As explained already why my views conflicted with the well being and equality of others, on this and other incidences.
Not sure how many times I have explained this over many months which again this is all you seeem interested in.
Well that is your problem not mine and the point is those who truly care for the well being and equality of others would be very much standing as I do against such a barbaric practice. If religious doctrine can make people think they can be acceptable victims to wrongs, then we should fundementally chanllenge that.

So again last chance to answer the points or quite frankly you can crawl away you pathetic annoying jerk


So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

What a load of bull, Didge

You really need to read what I said instead of making things up. I said - and I'll repeat it again 'if they choose to wear it of their own accord'

So what's you solution?

So no answer to my points as per usual.
What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


As explained already why my views conflicted with the well being and equality of others, on this and other incidences.
Not sure how many times I have explained this over many months which again this is all you seeem interested in.
Well that is your problem not mine and the point is those who truly care for the well being and equality of others would be very much standing as I do against such a barbaric practice. If religious doctrine can make people think they can be acceptable victims to wrongs, then we should fundementally chanllenge that.

So again last chance to answer the points or quite frankly you can crawl away you pathetic annoying jerk


So you do not care that many are forced to wear and fundementally those who claim to chose to wear is nothing of the sort as it is the views expressed of men in religious works that they cover themselves up?
If we allow such beliefs, whether it be views that allow men to beat their wivies, force themselves on them, because of what a book states, then we forego any aspect of fighting for the rights of women. Just because a woman has been indoctrinated with poor and bad beliefs, does not mean we should forsake them

What a load of bull, Didge

You really need to read what I said instead of making things up. I said - and I'll repeat it again 'if they choose to wear it of their own accord'

So what's you solution?

So no answer to my points as per usual.
What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

I answered your point by reminding you of what I said - several times.

In public for recognition purposes I agree with.

Work with Muslim leaders I agree with as well.

Anything else or are we done now?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

So no answer to my points as per usual.
What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

I answered your point by reminding you of what I said - several times.

In public for recognition purposes I agree with.

Work with Muslim leaders I agree with as well.

Anything else or are we done now?

You never answered anything but avoided

So you just basically wasted any chance of a debate with your inane gibberish

Well thanks, but as seen you have no answers and are complict to a system of dress that subjucates women

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

So no answer to my points as per usual.
What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

I answered your point by reminding you of what I said - several times.

In public for recognition purposes I agree with.

Work with Muslim leaders I agree with as well.

Anything else or are we done now?

You never answered anything but avoided

So you just basically wasted any chance of a debate with your inane gibberish

Well thanks, but as seen you have no answers and are complict to a system of dress that subjucates women

I answered your points and I never supported women wearing these clothes. Go and read what I said.

There there.

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

You never answered anything but avoided

So you just basically wasted any chance of a debate with your inane gibberish

Well thanks, but as seen you have no answers and are complict to a system of dress that subjucates women

I answered your points and I never supported women wearing these clothes. Go and read what I said.

There there.

You avoided everything and stated for them to be free to chose what they wear but as seen, its not a choice when indoictrinated. Already countless women thinking they can be beaten by their husbands and have sex forced on them based on religious text. If you think that is a choice then you a complete idiot.
You are complicit as I said

Here are the questions that must be satisfied in order to ban any article of clothing worn for religious reasons or any other reasons:

1) Does everyone have the right to their own beliefs?

2) Does everyone have the right to dress as they choose?

Inhibiting a person's freedom because he or she doesn't agree with you is authoritarian -- there's really no better word for it. It's the same thing the Christian Right in America does when it tries to prevent gay marriage or abortion.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

You never answered anything but avoided

So you just basically wasted any chance of a debate with your inane gibberish

Well thanks, but as seen you have no answers and are complict to a system of dress that subjucates women

I answered your points and I never supported women wearing these clothes. Go and read what I said.

There there.

You avoided everything and stated for them to be free to chose what they wear but as seen, its not a choice when indoictrinated. Already countless women thinking they can be beaten by their husbands and have sex forced on them based on religious text. If you think that is a choice then you a complete idiot.
You are complicit as I said

You need to go and ask some women who wear these clothes because of that and until you do and they say that's why they wear them then you have no evidence to support what you say.

Go and ask or leave them alone if they wear it by their own accord.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here are the questions that must be satisfied in order to ban any article of clothing worn for religious reasons or any other reasons:

1) Does everyone have the right to their own beliefs?

2) Does everyone have the right to dress as they choose?

Inhibiting a person's freedom because he or she doesn't agree with you is authoritarian -- there's really no better word for it. It's the same thing the Christian Right in America does when it tries to prevent gay marriage or abortion.

1) Not if that belief conflicts with the well being and equality of others.

2) Not if that dress is being forced onto them through subjucation.

Next

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


You avoided everything and stated for them to be free to chose what they wear but as seen, its not a choice when indoictrinated. Already countless women thinking they can be beaten by their husbands and have sex forced on them based on religious text. If you think that is a choice then you a complete idiot.
You are complicit as I said

You need to go and ask some women who wear these clothes because of that and until you do and they say that's why they wear them then you have no evidence to support what you say.

Go and ask or leave them alone if they wear it by their own accord.

You mean the ones indoctrinated with a belief that they should wear when it is not compualsary to do so in Islam?
Yet they take the view that they should based off teachings?
Again you are complicit in the subjucation of women.
If the view is based on religious teaching and that teaching effects people, then it is the right thing to do to fundementally chanllenged that.
Unless of course yopu think homosexuals should be executed, women stonned for adultery etc?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


You avoided everything and stated for them to be free to chose what they wear but as seen, its not a choice when indoictrinated. Already countless women thinking they can be beaten by their husbands and have sex forced on them based on religious text. If you think that is a choice then you a complete idiot.
You are complicit as I said

You need to go and ask some women who wear these clothes because of that and until you do and they say that's why they wear them then you have no evidence to support what you say.

Go and ask or leave them alone if they wear it by their own accord.

You mean the ones indoctrinated with a belief that they should wear when it is not compualsary to do so in Islam?
Yet they take the view that they should based off teachings?
Again you are complicit in the subjucation of women.
If the view is based on religious teaching and that teaching effects people, then it is the right thing to do to fundementally chanllenged that.
Unless of course yopu think homosexuals should be executed, women stonned for adultery etc?

No Didge. I mean the one's who wear it by thier own accord. Go and find some as I said or stop bullying women in the way you do which is completely the opposite of what you were saying just a few months ago.

How you can change your mind on something like this so quickly is incredible.

Anyway. I'm off for a quick couple up the club before it shuts. Catch you later maybe.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here are the questions that must be satisfied in order to ban any article of clothing worn for religious reasons or any other reasons:

1) Does everyone have the right to their own beliefs?

2) Does everyone have the right to dress as they choose?

Inhibiting a person's freedom because he or she doesn't agree with you is authoritarian -- there's really no better word for it. It's the same thing the Christian Right in America does when it tries to prevent gay marriage or abortion.

1) Not if that belief conflicts with the well being and equality of others.

2) Not if that dress is being forced onto them through subjucation.

Next

1) Wrong -- you're free to believe literally anything, and this can't morally be taken away. You can be prevented from ACTING upon beliefs that would conflict with others' rights.

2) If the mode of dress is being forced onto someone through subjugation, the issue is subjugation -- not the article of clothing. Again, thinking you are preventing oppression or subjugation by banning an article of clothing is like thinking you'd have prevented the Holocaust by banning the wearing of Stars of David. Even if the face covering is a symbol being unwillingly worn by a woman (which, by the way, is YOUR claim and not necessarily hers), not letting her wear it is not going to do a thing about any oppression or subjugation in her life.

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


You mean the ones indoctrinated with a belief that they should wear when it is not compualsary to do so in Islam?
Yet they take the view that they should based off teachings?
Again you are complicit in the subjucation of women.
If the view is based on religious teaching and that teaching effects people, then it is the right thing to do to fundementally chanllenged that.
Unless of course yopu think homosexuals should be executed, women stonned for adultery etc?

No Didge. I mean the one's who wear it by thier own accord. Go and find some as I said or stop bullying women in the way you do which is completely the opposite of what you were saying just a few months ago.

How you can change your mind on something like this  so quickly is incredible.

Anyway. I'm off for a quick couple up the club before it shuts. Catch you later maybe.

Own accord?
Or more like they have been indoctrainted to believe they should, the point you miss at everyturn.
You do reliase a set amound of Muslims also belive homosexuals should be executed, should I not also challenge that belief then?
How about where women think that Muslim men can beat them or force themselves on them?
Should I respect their own views here and do nothing to help the plight of women being abused.
So you may want to see who is bullying the women here you plonker, because its not me and its me trying to free them from subjucation which you want to help continue.

Lets hope I do not catch you later based on your views here

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

1) Not if that belief conflicts with the well being and equality of others.

2) Not if that dress is being forced onto them through subjucation.

Next

1) Wrong -- you're free to believe literally anything, and this can't morally be taken away. You can be prevented from ACTING upon beliefs that would conflict with others' rights.

2) If the mode of dress is being forced onto someone through subjugation, the issue is subjugation -- not the article of clothing. Again, thinking you are preventing oppression or subjugation by banning an article of clothing is like thinking you'd have prevented the Holocaust by banning the wearing of Stars of David. Even if the face covering is a symbol being unwillingly worn by a woman (which, by the way, is YOUR claim and not necessarily hers), not letting her wear it is not going to do a thing about any oppression or subjugation in her life.

2) Wrong if that belief directely effects the well being of others and their equality through that belief being wrong itself and contratry to the law. If they have been wrongly taught they can be beaten and raped, are you trying to tell me that belief is okay, or the law will act in the interest for them?
Clueless regressive lefty strikes again with gibberish

2) Bollocks, the clothing is the form of subjucation, and as such is being used to make women view themselves as a problem, due to the wants of men.

I suppose ben will next be telling the courts should not intervene to save the life of a child who needs a blood transfusion eh?
Listen cowboy, when you learn what it means to be liberal, let me know because with every view you contradict yourself

Richard The Lionheart wrote:2) Wrong if that belief directely effects the well being of others and their equality through that belief being wrong itself and contratry to the law. If they have been wrongly taught they can be beaten and raped, are you trying to tell me that belief is okay, or the law will act in the interest for them?

How are you going to ban a belief? You can only ban actions, you can't (morally OR practically) legislate people's thoughts, regulate their dreams or police their personal opinions.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Clueless regressive lefty strikes again with gibberish

Numb-skulled righty once again injects needlessly partisan comment into an otherwise interesting debate.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:2) Bollocks, the clothing is the form of subjucation, and as such is being used to make women view themselves as a problem, due to the wants of men.

Only if the woman does not want to wear it. If she does, it is wrong to disallow it, no matter your opinion about why she wants to.

I have no problem with you telling a woman in a face covering, "Don't you think that's oppressive?" But if you force her to take it off, can't you see you're no better than anyone who would force her to put it on?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suppose ben will next be telling the courts should not intervene to save the life of a child who needs a blood transfusion eh?
Listen cowboy, when you learn what it means to be liberal, let me know because with every view you contradict yourself

Now you listen here, little varmint -- I'm not a-sayin' you don't save that there young 'uns life, ya hear? I'm just a-sayin' you can't make nobody believe somethin' they ain't got themselves a hankerin' to believe.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:2) Wrong if that belief directely effects the well being of others and their equality through that belief being wrong itself and contratry to the law. If they have been wrongly taught they can be beaten and raped, are you trying to tell me that belief is okay, or the law will act in the interest for them?

How are you going to ban a belief? You can only ban actions, you can't (morally OR practically) legislate people's thoughts, regulate their dreams or police their personal opinions.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Clueless regressive lefty strikes again with gibberish

Numb-skulled righty once again injects needlessly partisan comment into an otherwise interesting debate.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:2) Bollocks, the clothing is the form of subjucation, and as such is being used to make women view themselves as a problem, due to the wants of men.

Only if the woman does not want to wear it. If she does, it is wrong to disallow it, no matter your opinion about why she wants to.

I have no problem with you telling a woman in a face covering, "Don't you think that's oppressive?" But if you force her to take it off, can't you see you're no better than anyone who would force her to put it on?

1) Ignorance is bliss in your case, well there is such a thing as marital rape and domestic violence which means we can intervene even if the wife believe s no wrong has been done to her due to her faith. There is two aspects of a belief banned. Does that help dummy? I interject calling you what you rightly are, a fucking idiot, who contradicts his liberal beliefs.

2) Again if the woman just like with martial raper and domestic violence believes she can be beaten, of her husband can force himself onto her and thus belives she should wear this, how does she really know if she sould be wearing this if based on a backward belief? I have not once stated to use force, maybe you can go back and show at any point that I have, I have even in fact stated how to eradictae this problem once and for all, but then the regressive in his excitement is incapable of reading it seems. What I object to most of all is you left wing idiots trying to defend such barbarity when you should also be challenging it

Got that Dummy?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suppose ben will next be telling the courts should not intervene to save the life of a child who needs a blood transfusion eh?
Listen cowboy, when you learn what it means to be liberal, let me know because with every view you contradict yourself

Now you listen here, little varmint -- I'm not a-sayin' you don't save that there young 'uns life, ya hear? I'm just a-sayin' you can't make nobody believe somethin' they ain't got themselves a hankerin' to believe.

I can certainly take action if the well being and equality of others is effected you pathetic appeaser.
My issue again is how you defend backward beliefs, when you should be challenging them and by you and other idiots defending them, then how are you ever going to bring about change in people
Its you regressives that continue to empower such bad ideas by not challenging them

Right I hope that has finally sunk in, but I fear I doubt it has

Goodnight

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
1) Ignorance is bliss in your case, well there is such a thing as marital rape and domestic violence which means we can intervene even if the wife believe s no wrong has been done to her due to her faith. There is two aspects of a belief banned. Does that help dummy? I interject calling you what you rightly are, a fucking idiot, who contradicts his liberal beliefs.

Yes, marital rape and domestic violence exist, but the problem is, those are actions -- not beliefs. You can make a man not rape or beat a woman; you can't make him believe those things are wrong. You can protect a woman from being beaten and raped -- you (sadly) can't legislate that she believes she doesn't deserve it.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
2) Again if the woman just like with martial raper and domestic violence believes she can be beaten, of her husband can force himself onto her and thus belives she should wear this, how does she really know if she sould be wearing this if based on a backward belief? I have not once stated to use force, maybe you can go back and show at any point that I have, I have even in fact stated how to eradictae this problem once and for all, but then the regressive in his excitement is incapable of reading it seems. What I object to most of all is you left wing idiots trying to defend such barbarity when you should also be challenging it

Got that Dummy?

I think so. You think something is barbaric and so you think it should be banned. Kind of like how a lot of people in my country think gay marriage is an abomination and thus should be illegal. Are you seeing the problem here?

A free society has to come up with really good reasons to stop people from doing things. And your personal opinion simply isn't a good enough reason.

Again I will answer before I go.
If the women believes the husband can beat her and force herself onto her, then is not then the law able to intervene?
That is a belief where the law has to intervene because the belief is wrong and denies her seeking the law to protect her rights.
Jesus wept

For the seond point, read back to what I said to irn as to what is the best way forward.


Here is what I said


What should we do, work with Muslim leaders to show it is not islamic.
Have it that it is banned for use in public places for recognition, as at present this discrminates that others cannot cover their identity. This not only protects a potential victim of attack having their own face recognised but also prevents those using to commit crimes.

Which I will add

Also that brainless lefities understand that they need to also challenged bad beliefs, not defend them and thus encourage them to continue


Right now I am going, there is only so much inane drivel I can stomach for one evening off clueless lefties

Didge...in your new found liberosity let me give you a word or two to the wise, cos you is gettin your butt kicked here

1) you CANT, quite literally cant ban a belief
for 2 reasons

firstly its been tried many times, and failed....you can EVEN wipe out all its adherents and yet years, centuries down the line someone finds the artefacts of that belief ...and starts it up again...
and coupled to this point a man may well SAY he believes one thing publicly, and yet actually practice something entirely different privately

secondly you would fall foul of liberatrian thought in other areas...

HRA for instance...and the right to personal and private belief....

As to clothing...again you CANNOT enforce (beyond a certain point and on certain very specific grounds) a dress code. Even the concept of such a thing (again except on VERY specific grounds) is moraly dubious, I mean ,,,where do you draw the line? and just who? decides where that line will be?

by all means remove the face covering in public....that I think would be justifiable and gain support.
by all means perhaps seek to make such items of clothing "socially unacceptable " (like smoking around kids)

by all means make abuse by the imposition of religious standards an agravating factor (good luck on prooving that though)

but you are letting your new found libertarian lusts run away with you....

libertarian, should not be found on the same page as the word "impose" you do realise that dont you

the worst imposition on anyone is that which is enforced "for their own good" by someone "not in their shoes"