Why would I answer your question after you had made a grand announcement that you were never going to read any of my posts any more? Try to be fair: While I might throw in some flippant posts here and there, I do try to address your points as I can. I believe I did answer the question. See post 511 in this thread. Let me expand a bit on that: As far as "getting to the abusive husbands" is concerned, it is for practical purposes: Technically, if a man forces a woman to wear something like that and otherwise prohibits her from leaving the house, it is already a crime - theoretically no new legal statute required to establish that. But in practice, you would almost never know...as you can imagine, these women are so intimidated and brainwashed (and likely often even lack the language skills as they are not allowed to communicate with anyone) that the chance that they would come out and complain about their husbands is almost equal to zero. But if they get fined...who do you think is going to show up and make a big scene? The husband. Schedule a hearing in court. Make them both appear. Have a translator there. Find out if she did it voluntarily. If not, nail the husband. Now let me ask you: How do you think you would otherwise get to them?
I stand corrected then. That's not the impression I got from your posts that I did read. I somehow managed to miss that one out of the 500+ posts in this thread.
Actually you're probably right. My bad, I was frustrated about something else when I wrote that. I didn't read where in the law it says that if it's voluntary, the woman's fine is wiped away. This doesn't make sense because the husband is not stupid, he's abusive in some form. He knows there is a law, and he knows the likelihood of success in challenging it. Surely, he would rather pay the fine than incurr the cost of going to court. On top of that, I re-iterate that the women won't stop wearing it. They will just stop going out or move out of France. The scenario you're describing is less than 1 in 2000 easily, and the stupidity needed for that one guy to make that mistake indicates to me that he is going to get caught sooner or later. I also deeply resent your assertion that the women don't speak the language. There are doctors and engineers who wear the niqab. There is a sex-ed teacher in Dubai who wears a niqab. More importantly, as they will almost certainly be of Algerian or Moroccan origin, they will speak French fluently before they even step into the country. That's why they chose France in the first place. You continue to act as though they have to be cavewomen to wear a niqab, when in reality it is maybe simply a case of lacking self-esteem, something that can similarly be said about women who flaunt their bodies for attention. In some cases, they know all the facts, and just choose to wear it. My thoughts are that success with the current generation has an extremely low ceiling, as you demonstrated. Given that it's only 2,000 people I would double the fine for the husband, make sure that those 2,000 women are aware of how to report their husbands, provide protection for them (and their kids) in some cases, give them more information about the history and symbolism behind the niqab, provide them clear reasons why the niqab makes it difficult for them to integrate, and most importantly ensure that every school is discussing the pros/cons of wearing it in such a way that those kids can end up making their own decisions. In many cases, these women are simply unaware of the consequences of reporting their husbands - how will they have enough income, who will they go to, who do they have to talk to, can they have confidential discussions with a counsellor, etc. IMO the law severely underrates the male's role and severely overrates the female's role. Even a $1 fine for the woman is excessive. It's not for the government to decide for the woman. The government should be focusing on informing these women and going after the men much harder.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ills-40-queuing-for-food-aid-in-Pakistan.html Suicide bomber in burka kills 40 queuing for food aid in Pakistan A suicide bomber dressed in a burka killed at least 41 people queuing for emergency food rations on Saturday in Pakistan's terrorist-riddled tribal region bordering Afghanistan. The attacker was thought to be female – which would make it the first time a suicide attack has been carried out by a woman in Pakistan. Witnesses said she was stopped at a security checkpoint as United Nations officials distributed aid in Khar, the main town of Bajaur, which the Pakistani army this year claimed to have cleared of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighter. She hurled a hand grenade before detonating an explosive-laden vest as she was being searched. More than 1000 people – mostly displaced by fighting elsewhere in the tribal areas – had gathered to wait for food. "At least 41 people are dead and more than 60 wounded in the suicide bombing," said Sohail Khan, a senior tribal administration official. Pakistan's military launched operations in Bajaur in August 2008 and have repeatedly claimed to have eliminated the Islamist militant threat. The country's northwest tribal belt is a stronghold of Islamist groups, including home-grown Jihadi cells as well as extremists who fled Afghanistan after the US-led invasion toppled the hardline Taliban regime at the end of 2001. American military commanders in Afghanistan have repeatedly expressed frustration that Pakistan has not done more to rid its rugged frontier of al-Qaeda and Taliban-linked groups, such as the Haqqani Network which is able to launch attacks on international forces from their havens across the border. Police and local administration officials confirmed the attack in Khar was carried out by a woman, according to their initial examination of the bomber's remains. The local administration imposed an indefinite curfew in Khar, while security forces patrolled streets and launched a search operation in the area, officials said. About 4000 people have died in suicide and bomb attacks across Pakistan since 2007, when security forces raided an extremist mosque in Islamabad, turning terrorist networks against a regime that had previously offered tacit – or at times overt – support to Jihadi groups. However, Pakistan vehemently denies accusations that it is not doing enough to eradicate the Taliban in the northwest, saying more than 2400 troops have been killed in fighting Islamist militants from 2002 until April this year.
Another horrible act of terrorism, but honestly I don't see this as a strong argument in favor of the ban. Assuming this was really a woman, unless she had the bomb strapped to her face, it's not like she would have had any more trouble concealing it with just her face uncovered. Maybe we should ban (hot) women from wearing loose clothing? :grin:
You're aware that a burka covers the face? Also, you're aware that a burka ban would obviously not stop this from happening? The only other possibility is that you believe people who wear burqas are more likely to do this.. Indirectly implying that the ban is not on burqas, bit rather on those who wear them? Interested to know your rationale.
Don't get mad at him - he can't control himself. When a person has islamophobic urges, there are certain things that they do. Let the him be...
Well, I hope this paints an interesting picture in a alot of your post to imply the violence in islam and that they can't coexist with anyone and that it is islam against the world, well this paints the picture that it is very much these extremist against everybody including muslims. There were no american, non muslims targets, this was done to the people of hte same religion and of the same region even showing that it has nothing to do with muslim or not, but political and social issues to expand, its a damn shame and these people are enemies to everyone really bc its there high way or no way to them, but yea the majority of the people who they kill and torture are muslims, there group and ideology(taliban, alquaeda) are the issues, and they are less than a million strong most likely, but painting the stroke for their extremes on the 999 other millions is not just wrong, its just misguided. numbers are obviously approximated
on another note of that country, which I have descent from which I emotionally attached to and proud of, but like many, just don't trust the politics and are disheartened by the current state of things, but here is some positive news http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=49972 muslim billionaire pledged 75 percent of his worth to help flood aid
Not sure what you are referring to. I responded to Steve_Francis_rules' joke, that was my "rationale" for my post. As to the burkas, I think they are ridiculous. They are like the culmination of the whole "women must be covered because they are an evil temptation" repressed back-asswards sexuality thinking in islam that degrades women to objects and men to animals that must be protected from themselves by covering the "objects". It's stupid. As to this type of terror being possible without burkas, yes, but we talked in this thread about burkas being used to conceal weapons and explosives, and this is exactly what happened here. Back-asswards repressed morals, meet hate and terror - all supposedly (by the logic of the terrorists) in the name of islam. Woohoo.
So did she have the vest with bombs on her Face? Otherwise any form of clothing could have hidden the vest/bomb. Come on SJC you should be able to see the lack of logic in this argumentation. I can understand being against Burkas because you think it is surpressing woman (like we have discussed in this thread before I disagree). But claiming that Burkas are a way to hide bombs is not true, unless thaey hide the vests/bombs on their face. This is a sad story, but should not be used in this specific discussion.
ATW, You can't conceal those weapons with a burka. I seriously doubt you know what burka means. Burka is a piece of cloth/whatever which covers the area of your FACE. ONLY FROM YOUR FOREHEAD DOWN TO YOUR CHIN. It can't be used to do what you're saying anymore than a shoe or granny panties. Should we ban these things in public? Please acknowledge this because the only other explanation is that you are intentionally blocking this information from entering your head. EDIT: Maybe we should put it in a way that his brain would understand. Do you understand now?
Wikipedia and any reputable source disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa A burqa (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈbʊrqɑʕ]; also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua from Arabic: برقع burqu‘ or burqa‘ ) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places. The burqa is usually understood to be the woman's loose body-covering (Arabic: jilbāb), plus the head-covering (Arabic: ḥijāb, taking the most usual meaning), plus the face-veil (Arabic: niqāb). File:Burqa Afghanistan 01.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So before you go trying to be all condescending, trying to educate others, you should educate yourself first.
So you believe that the following clothes cannot be used to conceal Bombs? Or do you believe they should also be banned? (I do not want to post many pictures since it is a waste of bandwidth. Large dresses, paternity clothes, nun dresses, Hockey shirts, basically all Arabic traditional clothes ? Clothes are used to cover the body, so if you but a vest/bomb on the body you will not see it unless people are naked. Come on ATW, you cannot keep supporting this logic. It is flawed. Like I said I can understand you being against Burkas as a result of woman rights (even though I disagree with that), but this is just not a good argument why Burkas should be banned. It is only good because you can use the fear of the weak minded.
I never said that security considerations are the only reason why I think burkas are ridiculous. They are one consideration, but not the main one. I also never said that there are no other ways to hide explosives. So do you acknowledge that what you and Mathloom said about burkas only covering the face was false? Your argument in your previous post was based on that false statement. Also, arno_ed, you disagree that burkas are against women's rights? You see no problems at all with them? Do you understand the "rationale" behind them?
What do you say to women who WANT to wear them, willingly, without being forced by anyone/thing? Would those women be taking away their own rights from themselves?
Ah, the good old "but they want to" argument. "Oh, but my wife likes it when I beat her up." I say they are brainwashed. I guess it is part of the "culture" in some parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it is not in the western world. They can do it in Afghanistan and Pakistan for all I care, but not in the free world. And just because I want to run around with a halloween mask all the time in public does not mean that there are no rules against it.
