Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dutch "Burqa ban" comes into force from today
Options
Comments
-
OK, but how would it benefit you?
well it means I don't have to live in a society with people who want to conquer and convert me to their dogma.
... well in a by the sword way.
there'll still be the mormons and the church and the scientologists obviously, but they'll only try to film me or molest me.0 -
-
You have high hopes for the effects of a burka ban.
If it inconveniences extremists, and the hardliner culture which encourages extremists, from setting roots in the society I live in then its something good.
well, for me anyway.
kumbaya from team burqa ban.
0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »So that's still a no?
skanetrafiken was asked directly about the ethnicity of the driver. They have saidWhat ethnicity the driver has is nothing that we will comment.
Most of the comments in Swedish are Swedes talking about how racist the reaction to the story is. Skanetrafiken says that they delete any comments that could be viewed as offensive.
One popular comment in Swedish saysTo Skånetrafiken:
What was this driver and how could he do this? Given the composition of Malmö's inhabitants, I wonder: Do you have different rules for different districts? Do you take religious considerations?
But Skanetrafiken has apparently decided not to answer that question.
Seeing that the only two places the answer to this question can come from are the woman who was thrown off the bus, who would be attacked for specifying the ethnicity of the driver, or the company, who has clearly declined to comment, I think that an answer will be a long time coming.0 -
Dog Man Star wrote: »Most Irish birds should be forced to wear a burka, with their scouldy big white flabby heads.
Start your own thread over in Mother Issues.0 -
Advertisement
-
You do seem to having great difficulty seeing this as more than a binary issue. Like it or not, a ban on what clothing a woman can wear is the same thing as a requirement for them to wear something. That is why I am opposed to a ban on it. In addition, this is a measure that will only be effective in public places so women will have no protection in the place they need it most, their home. All you are doing is sweeping it under the rug.
That you see it as a clothing/telling women what to wear issue (micro) really does speak to your nescience on the matter.
Your creaking argument about needing protection in the home is nonsense. Theres domestic violence/abuse irrespective of religon already in Ireland/Europe, irrespective of a burka ban. But what a ban would say is "dont sweep" your intolerance, and subjugation of women as second class citizens into the streets, and normalise it.And you aren't doing it to protect women, you are doing it to protect your sensibilities because the sight of them offends you.
You really are a hollow vessel on this. While its a word I'm sure you might be more comfortable with, the sight of them doesnt sit right, because of what they mean. In there is someones daughter/sister/wife more than likely forced into it, or wearing one afraid of the repercussion of not wearing it. I dont want to see a manifestation of intolerance and subjugation normalised. If you want to wear religious paraphernalia, wear a niqab.As to the item of clothing itself, it is historically rooted in the oppression of women and is a sign of that oppression in modern times. But these are beliefs that are often shared by the women in question due to their religious upbringing. Telling them you are forcing them to do something against their beliefs for their own good is only going to breed animosity and resentment. The more effective approach would be education and supportive environment so they can come to their own decisions while feeling safe in doing so.
I wouldn't expect you to. It'd burst the bubble.
Yet here you are claiming anyone who would see them banned in Europe is a racist, and doesnt care about women.
Contradict yourself much?
"Feeling safe." Where your husband /father forces one on you.
Bless...0 -
I don't give a rats about what religion people follow. I personally think it's all poppycock. But if I'm gonna be told to take my hood down in a shopping centre while someone (and it could be a bloke, let's be honest) can saunter into a bank or petrol station or wherever covered head to toe in black then something is a miss.0
-
RandomName2 wrote: »skanetrafiken was asked directly about the ethnicity of the driver. They have said
Most of the comments in Swedish are Swedes talking about how racist the reaction to the story is. Skanetrafiken says that they delete any comments that could be viewed as offensive.
One popular comment in Swedish says
But Skanetrafiken has apparently decided not to answer that question.
Seeing that the only two places the answer to this question can come from are the woman who was thrown off the bus, who would be attacked for specifying the ethnicity of the driver, or the company, who has clearly declined to comment, I think that an answer will be a long time coming.
Except it appears they did answer the question.
Skånetrafiken's traffic director Linus Erixon immediately addressed the incident via Twitter. "Something went wrong," he wrote. "Of course people are welcome on board our buses and trains in shorts and a camisole."
"I can confirm that the driver was not acting out of any religious or political motive," he told Sydsvenskan.
https://www.thelocal.se/20190730/malmo-teenager-ordered-off-bus-because-for-wearing-too-few-clothesRoger Hassenforder wrote: »That you see it as a clothing/telling women what to wear issue (micro) really does speak to your nescience on the matter.
Your creaking argument about needing protection in the home is nonsense. Theres domestic violence/abuse irrespective of religon already in Ireland/Europe, irrespective of a burka ban. But what a ban would say is "dont sweep" your intolerance, and subjugation of women as second class citizens into the streets, and normalise it.
No it doesn't. It's an extremely minor instance of that subjugation. I'm glad it makes you feel like you are doing something useful but you really aren't. It won't change any lives for the better. Do you know what an abusive man will do if he can't control what a woman wears on the street? He'll keep her inside.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »You really are a hollow vessel on this. While its a word I'm sure you might be more comfortable with, the sight of them doesnt sit right, because of what they mean. In there is someones daughter/sister/wife more than likely forced into it, or wearing one afraid of the repercussion of not wearing it. I dont want to see a manifestation of intolerance and subjugation normalised. If you want to wear religious paraphernalia, wear a niqab.
So, in other words, it offends your sensibilities.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Yet here you are claiming anyone who would see them banned in Europe is a racist, and doesnt care about women.
Contradict yourself much?
Where did I say "anyone who would see them banned in Europe is a racist"?Roger Hassenforder wrote: »"Feeling safe." Where your husband /father forces one on you.
Bless...
Which is why I said that domestic violence support groups would be the better solution. They'll actually help the woman rather than hide the abuse.I don't give a rats about what religion people follow. I personally think it's all poppycock. But if I'm gonna be told to take my hood down in a shopping centre while someone (and it could be a bloke, let's be honest) can saunter into a bank or petrol station or wherever covered head to toe in black then something is a miss.
Is that hood rule enshrined in law?0 -
Not in law but walk into any shopping centre in Ireland with your hood up and you'll see signs everywhere saying it's against the rules. You'll be approached by security staff too. i imagine there'd be uproar if a security guard told someone to take one of these full face and body covering garments off0
-
Think the days of any type of facial (or even just headgear: via {peaked} hats or {baggy} hooded tops will be at an end anyway.I don't give a rats about what religion people follow. I personally think it's all poppycock. But if I'm gonna be told to take my hood down in a shopping centre while someone (and it could be a bloke, let's be honest) can saunter into a bank or petrol station or wherever covered head to toe in black then something is a miss.
Recently in Ldn a chap was handed a 80note (or so, public-order type fine) for refusing to remove a high zip-collar tracksuit top, (from jawline), as the Met were running their new CCTV-FRS trial outside a shopping centre.
The new FacialRecSystem cameras (on the way) can ID 200 faces per second. Religion won't come into it. It will simply be part n' parcel of everyday life, like it or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it doesn't. It's an extremely minor instance of that subjugation.
Say what now? A "minor instance"?I'm glad it makes you feel like you are doing something useful but you really aren't. It won't change any lives for the better. Do you know what an abusive man will do if he can't control what a woman wears on the street? He'll keep her inside.
Which is why I said that domestic violence support groups would be the better solution. They'll actually help the woman rather than hide the abuse.
Notwithstanding domestic abuse already exists irrespective of burkas, nor is a burka a symptom of donestic abuse, do you seriously think, a women forced to wear a burka, in a relationship where she is regarded as a second class citizen, bereft of rights we take for granted, would be "allowed" to attend anything resembling a domestic violence group by her husband/father?
Allowed attend a group offering supports for such women?
Are actually serious?
Are you that naive?
As for keeping her inside nonsense, if shes so conditioned and terrified of being seen without it , he'll have to do the picking kids up, shopping etc, cant walk in the park. But allowing it, he's being literally let get away with his subjugation, and society is condoning it. She had no place of refuge from him. A least a ban might signal society is not ok with this. But argue against such a ban, is saying, "society doesnt give a shít about you".
You might as well put the burka on her yourself. You dont give a shît about these girls Your only concern is to be vocally critical of any semblance of a curtailment of a toxic aspect of a sacred cow.Where did I say "anyone who would see them banned in Europe is a racist"?Just another transparent attempt to attack foreigners under the guise of saving women.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Say what now? A "minor instance"?
Yes, as abusive relationships go, the wearing of the burka is one of the smaller things they have to worry about.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Notwithstanding domestic abuse already exists irrespective of burkas, nor is a burka a symptom of donestic abuse, do you seriously think, a women forced to wear a burka, in a relationship where she is regarded as a second class citizen, bereft of rights we take for granted, would be "allowed" to attend anything resembling a domestic violence group by her husband/father?
Allowed attend a group offering supports for such women?
Are actually serious?
Are you that naive?
No, I never said they'd be allowed.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »As for keeping her inside nonsense, if shes so conditioned and terrified of being seen without it , he'll have to do the picking kids up, shopping etc, cant walk in the park. But allowing it, he's being literally let get away with his subjugation, and society is condoning it. She had no place of refuge from him. A least a ban might signal society is not ok with this. But argue against such a ban, is saying, "society doesnt give a shít about you".
You can signal all you want, it's not going to actually help anyone.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »You might as well put the burka on her yourself. You dont give a shît about these girls Your only concern is to be vocally critical of any semblance of a curtailment of a toxic aspect of a sacred cow.
Sure Roger, I mean, I've literally criticised the burka myself on this thread but you keep pulling stuff out of your backside.
So I didn't say what you said I did. What a shocker.0 -
I once saw two women in burqas running into each other and stopping for a "Oh hey, how are you?" chat. Still think about that sometimes, how the eff did they know it was each other? Mind you I think that's the only time I've ever seen two people at once in burqas so I guess context helps.
Like a lot of people I'm conflicted about this, leaning towards supporting it. How it's implemented is going to be crucial, I know a lot of the reaction here is that it will combat radicalisation but surely we can all imagine how it'll be spun into a "part of the apostates' war on Islam" narrative that actually drives radicalisation?
I'd also wonder what steps, if any, are in place to monitor and if possible prevent the outcome of rather than these women wearing something else in public, these women just don't go in public now. As many are saying what we need are more integrated Muslims, and I hope this doesn't result in fundamentalists already vulnerable to radicalisation being further isolated in their echo chamber.
The line also needs to be very clearly drawn at face coverings rather than headcoverings imo too.0 -
Yes, as abusive relationships go, the wearing of the burka is one of the smaller things they have to worry about.
So there we have it. Being forced to wear a burka is one of the "smaller things" to worry about. Jesus Christ.You can signal all you want, it's not going to actually help anyone.
Sure Roger, I mean, I've literally criticised the burka myself on this thread but you keep pulling stuff out of your backside.
Expresses a negative view of the burqa once/twice (?), but proceeds to spend thread arguing with those who'd see it banned, calling them racists ( see below). Its clear you dont give a fiddlers about girls being forced to wear one. A man given to the unprompted use of "signal" and "offend" in discourse says a lot. Speaks to true intention and motivation.So I didn't say what you said I did. What a shocker.
As quoted above, you've called anyone positively disposed to the ban, as just using it as an opportunity to attack foreigners. But you're definately not calling them racists,no siree. Not you...0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »So there we have it. Being forced to wear a burka is one of the "smaller things" to worry about. Jesus Christ.
You still haven't said what you find wrong about that. Do you think a burka is one of the major issues faced by Muslim women? I'd have thought the need for an escort and requiring permission to go places and do normal things were more pressing issues.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Expresses a negative view of the burqa once/twice (?), but proceeds to spend thread arguing with those who'd see it banned, calling them racists ( see below). Its clear you dont give a fiddlers about girls being forced to wear one. A man given to the unprompted use of "signal" and "offend" in discourse says a lot. Speaks to true intention and motivation.
I've been clear that I don't agree with the burka. I've also been clear that I don't not believe in a ban because it will have no practical benefit, cause no cultural shift and only make life more restrictive for women. You want to send a signal. You actually want a ban to virtue signal.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »As quoted above, you've called anyone positively disposed to the ban, as just using it as an opportunity to attack foreigners. But you're definately not calling them racists,no siree. Not you...
I was not referring to anyone outside this thread, Roger.0 -
You still haven't said what you find wrong about that. Do you think a burka is one of the major issues faced by Muslim women? I'd have thought the need for an escort and requiring permission to go places and do normal things were more pressing issues
Maybe its just me, in that I feel i dont have to state what i think is wrong from being forced to wear a burka, but then your next point suggests i dont need to, as for some reason, maybe/possibly the same as yours, you purport to be against them too...yet we argue.
A need for an escort, permission etc. are also unacceptable in a society trying to ensure equal rights. I dont seperate them. They're all unacceptable. You seem to speaking to some kind of hierarchy of unacceptability in this subjugation. I just see subjugation of women. Its all wrong.I've been clear that I don't agree with the burka. I've also been clear that I don't not believe in a ban because it will have no practical benefit, cause no cultural shift and only make life more restrictive for women.
Ive dealt with this point, but you just keep repeating it. There is no evidence to say banning a burka will have an adverse effect on those who dont want to wear it. I note its your opinion though, fair enough, not an assertion.
I'm genuinely lost. What are you trying to say?You want to send a signal. You actually want a ban to virtue signal.I was not referring to anyone outside this thread, Roger.
Ah, so you're limiting yourself to just those within this thread are racists? Is there a whiff of admission you wouldnt say this to someones face? So its just those who express a positive view towards a ban in this thread all racists?
Am i a racist?0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Maybe its just me, in that I feel i dont have to state what i think is wrong from being forced to wear a burka, but then your next point suggests i dont need to, as for some reason, maybe/possibly the same as yours, you purport to be against them too...yet we argue.
Because you continue to equate being against a ban with being in favour of a burka.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »A need for an escort, permission etc. are also unacceptable in a society trying to ensure equal rights. I dont seperate them. They're all unacceptable. You seem to speaking to some kind of hierarchy of unacceptability in this subjugation. I just see subjugation of women. Its all wrong.
It is. But some issues are more pressing and oppressive than others.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »I'm genuinely lost. What are you trying to say?
It's just amusing to me that's all.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Ah, so you're limiting yourself to just those within this thread are racists? Is there a whiff of admission you wouldnt say this to someones face? So its just those who express a positive view towards a ban in this thread all racists?
Am i a racist?
I've told plenty of people they are racist. I don't think you are in that I don't think you hate other cultures or nationalities, I think you just fear them.0 -
Because you continue to equate being against a ban with being in favour of a burka.
It is. But some issues are more pressing and oppressive than others.
No, i equate a burka with subjugation. I dont see it as a minor aspect of this sujugation as you do.
Being against a burka, but against a ban is fair enough if you had some modicum of a coherent argument, but you dont seem to have anything, except resorting to ad hominems when cornered, and the repetitive sniping at posters gives lie to to your claim of being against it.
Fair enough. Ive no idea what you tried to say. I suspect you dont either.It's just amusing to me that's all.I've told plenty of people they are racist. I don't think you are in that I don't think you hate other cultures or nationalities, I think you just fear them.
Good on you, calling out these racists.
So you think Im not a racist, just a xenophobe? Whats the evidence, and how do you differentiate? Or is it just arbitrary, unsubstantiated pigeon holing in your head of those you disagree with?0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »No, i equate a burka with subjugation. I dont see it as a minor aspect of this sujugation as you do.
Being against a burka, but against a ban is fair enough if you had some modicum of a coherent argument, but you dont seem to have anything, except resorting to ad hominems when cornered, and the repetitive sniping at posters gives lie to to your claim of being against it.
I've given plenty of arguments. Prohibition only ever works as a stop gap and drives the prohibited behaviour further out of general view. You need to tackle the sources of the behaviour, not the manifestations of it. It hink it's hypocritical to tell a woman what she cannot wear while simultaneously criticising what she is forced to wear. I think a burka ban will only work to further restrict the freedom given to some womenRoger Hassenforder wrote: »Fair enough. Ive no idea what you tried to say. I suspect you dont either.
Oh sorry. I didn't realise you were that lost. I find it amusing that you are supporting the ban because it sends a virtuous signal. It's a literal virtue signal.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Good on you, calling out these racists.
So you think Im not a racist, just a xenophobe? Whats the evidence, and how do you differentiate? Or is it just arbitrary, unsubstantiated pigeon holing in your head of those you disagree with?
The evidence is your post history. i distinguish one from the other by language used.0 -
I've given plenty of arguments. Prohibition only ever works as a stop gap and drives the prohibited behaviour further out of general view. You need to tackle the sources of the behaviour, not the manifestations of it. It hink it's hypocritical to tell a woman what she cannot wear while simultaneously criticising what she is forced to wear. I think a burka ban will only work to further restrict the freedom given to some women.
Ironically, driving the behaviour out of general view is what is required, because "out of view" its not mandatory. Its not a problem generally "out of view"
A bit of a burn there, might want to run water over it.
Anyway, So how do we tackle it, like you say with classes? Focus groups?
"Husband dear, i'm just heading down to the womens centre with Fatima and Noor, there's a talk about discontinuing the subjugation of women by you men, about empowering ourselves to throw off the burka, and demanding equal rights"
Hillarious.
They're being jailed in Iran for not wearing their hijab. The hijab. What hope have their sisters with societies where the burka is mandatory.
Ban it, and stop it being normalised.
Ban it and send the signal, women are equal to men.Oh sorry. I didn't realise you were that lost. I find it amusing that you are supporting the ban because it sends a virtuous signal. It's a literal virtue signal.
I'd put good money on English being your first language. But whatever you're trying to say, you're failing.
So I'll throw you a line here, but I'm totally reaching, are you saying me arguing in favour of a ban is a "virtue signal"?
Is that what you're trying to say?The evidence is your post history. i distinguish one from the other by language used.
You'll have no problem so producing some evidence to support your conclusion that I'm a xenophobe...
Take your time, I'm heading out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Ironically, driving the behaviour out of general view is what is required, because "out of view" its not mandatory. Its not a problem generally "out of view"
A bit of a burn there, might want to run water over it.
Anyway, So how do we tackle it, like you say with classes? Focus groups?
"Husband dear, i'm just heading down to the womens centre with Fatima and Noor, there's a talk about discontinuing the subjugation of women by you men, about empowering ourselves to throw off the burka, and demanding equal rights"
Hillarious.
They're being jailed in Iran for not wearing their hijab. The hijab. What hope have their sisters with societies where the burka is mandatory.
Ban it, and stop it being normalised.
Ban it and send the signal, women are equal to men.
Why would you assume I meant that they'd be doing it with the knowledge or permission of their husband? The point of a refuge and domestic violence law is for people in desperate need of it.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »I'd put good money on English being your first language. But whatever you're trying to say, you're failing.
So I'll throw you a line here, but I'm totally reaching, are you saying me arguing in favour of a ban is a "virtue signal"?
Is that what you're trying to say?
I'm saying your reason for wanting it is that it is a literal virtue signal.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »You'll have no problem so producing some evidence to support your conclusion that I'm a xenophobe...
Take your time, I'm heading out.
Have a read through this.0 -
Why would you assume I meant that they'd be doing it with the knowledge or permission of their husband? The point of a refuge and domestic violence law is for people in desperate need of it.
I'm saying your reason for wanting it is that it is a literal virtue signal.
Ah, so I'm the virtue signaler? I want to signal my "virtue", with a bigoted/racist gesture?
I can see why you find it hillarious. Its nuts.
Of course they not going to have their husbands permission. Thats the whole point, there's no classes/work groups etc going to drive this. Jesus, finally at 2.30am..
*inserts clap hands emojiHave a read through this.
So your response to being asked to providie evidence Im a xenophobe , is a link dump of all my posts? I know what i said dude. Come come, back yourself up. A few examples will suffice0 -
-
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Anyone else would be embarrassed.
Ah here man,I can only assume the anonymity of the internet is why such outlandish opinions are ever expressed.
Its just not the reality of a large portion of the general public.0 -
My feelings on this are it should be treated the same as someone wearing a motorcycle helmet or something. I think walking on a public street the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can and can't wear that goes for all faiths. However in places where it's important to see people's faces for security purposes eg bank, airport etc they should be banned. Look i think it's a highly backward culture and i personally feel uncomfortable seeing them in 21st century Europe. However i'm going to go with the right to free expression and religion and say and outright ban is wrong.
People will argue "but in their culture we can't do X, Y, Z" Yes that's true however we are better than their cultures for exactly the reason that we do allow people to practice what they want.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Ah, so I'm the virtue signaler? I want to signal my "virtue", with a bigoted/racist gesture?
I can see why you find it hillarious. Its nuts.
No, the ban is the virtue signal, by your description of it anyway.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Of course they not going to have their husbands permission. Thats the whole point, there's no classes/work groups etc going to drive this. Jesus, finally at 2.30am..
*inserts clap hands emoji
Why are you talking about classes and work groups when I specifically mentioned shelters and legal protections?Roger Hassenforder wrote: »So your response to being asked to providie evidence Im a xenophobe , is a link dump of all my posts? I know what i said dude. Come come, back yourself up. A few examples will suffice
You asked me my opinion on you. I've no obligation to back it up on this thread. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't have asked for it. I'm certainly not going to go back through all the immigration and muslim threads you've posted on right now. You're welcome to take this to pm if you wish.0 -
Why are you talking about classes and work groups when I specifically mentioned shelters and legal protections?
Because you also specifically mentioned education. Jesus wept, you might remember what you write:The more effective approach would be education and...
Hence the absurd examples of your argument. Womens' refuges are really resolving domestic violence. Its almost non-existent now... nobody is getting the shît beaten out of them these days... because theres refuges. Vulnerable girls already have legal protections in many countries, doesnt seem to deter "honour " killings, acid attacks, beatings, disavowals, forced repatriations, and thats just where we have womens rights and legal protections.You asked me my opinion on you. I've no obligation to back it up on this thread. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't have asked for it. I'm certainly not going to go back through all the immigration and muslim threads you've posted on right now.
This is just brilliant.
When challenged, you chickened out from calling me an actual racist, maybe fearful of a mod sanction, and settled on calling me a xenophobe. I asked for evidence, and you rather embarrassingly provided a link dump, and now to excuse this failure, now try and weasel out with a "I'm certainly not going to go back through" etc..
This seems to be your modus operandi : snipe and try scuttle off when challenged.
Protip: dont call people racists, bigots, xenophobes if you're going to fail to substantiate. It adds nothing to discourse.You're welcome to take this to pm if you wish.
And deprive the rest of the "bigots, racists, nazis, and anti immigrant xenophobes* the spectacle of you, the High Priest of Right-on Liberal Political Correctness humiliating yourself?
Na, you're grand. This is gold for us 'alt right extremeists*'.
That said, rather than hogging the thread with our tete á tete, I'll leave you with right of reply for the moment. It'll just be more of the same empty, vacuous rhetoric.
Im heading out for a cycle with my girls, with them blissfully unaware, their dad would not see them or their 'sisters' being forced to wear a burka walking down the road, unable to enjoy the August breeze in their hair, sun on their face,
because their husband/father deemed it necessary. You seem to call that "virtue signalling". I dont really have a word for it, just protection of rights.
*sarcasm alert.
I feel its necessary.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Because you also specifically mentioned education. Jesus wept, you might remember what you write:
The education I mentioned does not refer to classes and work groups. Support groups maybe.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Hence the absurd examples of your argument. Womens' refuges are really resolving domestic violence. Its almost non-existent now... nobody is getting the shît beaten out of them these days... because theres refuges. Vulnerable girls already have legal protections in many countries, doesnt seem to deter "honour " killings, acid attacks, beatings, disavowals, forced repatriations, and thats just where we have womens rights and legal protections.
Women's shelters and refuges are to help women in all kinds of abusive situations, not just violent ones. They just prioritise those cases for obvious reasons.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »This is just brilliant.
When challenged, you chickened out from calling me an actual racist, maybe fearful of a mod sanction, and settled on calling me a xenophobe. I asked for evidence, and you rather embarrassingly provided a link dump, and now to excuse this failure, now try and weasel out with a "I'm certainly not going to go back through" etc..
This seems to be your modus operandi : snipe and try scuttle off when challenged.
Protip: dont call people racists, bigots, xenophobes if you're going to fail to substantiate. It adds nothing to discourse.
You asked me for my opinion, I gave it. I based it solely on your posting history on that account.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »And deprive the rest of the "bigots, racists, nazis, and anti immigrant xenophobes* the spectacle of you, the High Priest of Right-on Liberal Political Correctness humiliating yourself?
Na, you're grand. This is gold for us 'alt right extremeists*'.
That said, rather than hogging the thread with our tete á tete, I'll leave you with right of reply for the moment. It'll just be more of the same empty, vacuous rhetoric.
Im heading out for a cycle with my girls, with them blissfully unaware, their dad would not see them or their 'sisters' being forced to wear a burka walking down the road, unable to enjoy the August breeze in their hair, sun on their face,
because their husband/father deemed it necessary. You seem to call that "virtue signalling". I dont really have a word for it, just protection of rights.
*sarcasm alert.
I feel its necessary.
Enjoy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yesterday in Eyre Square shopping centre there were 6 women with white niqabs, one male handler.
For illustration purposes
0
Advertisement