Dutch "Burqa ban" comes into force from today

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Actually you'll survive fine and dandy with not the slightest of worry, as you've stated previously here on boards, that you live in (affulent) Chesire^ county (not Manc, as is alluded to).

In some town/location/area, (that from memory) you described: 'as white as the whitest town in Ireland back in the 1980's'.
‎97.3% ^White
1.7% Asian
0.6% Black
0.4% White Other

Why not leave such idyllic peaceful mono-ethnicity behind, and move down to embrace Newham or Tower Hamlets so as to enjoy the true pleasures of actual multi-culturism.

That’s fairly typical of the hypocrisy of rich whites and multiculturalism. The rich live where they can, the poor where they must. If the rich liked multiculturalism they would be living in it, and diverse neighbourhoods would be the richest part of any city, as the rich flock in. They don’t.

The whole “how will I survive seeing a burka” which he is trying to bring the discussion back to is totally irrelevant to whether the burka is a good thing or not. In fact the burka is clearly designed to be a walking prison, black in the searing heat of the Arabian summer. It’s designed to be as uncomfortable as possible. The men wear white.

It’s isnt universally Islamic, it’s the attire the Wahhabists and Salafists impose on women. This is what the woke bros are now supporting, the misogynist attire of the most depraved religious cults, sects hated by most Muslims.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm also reluctant to wear a habit, a crash helmet or a yarmulke.becaise i am neither a nun, a motor cyclist or a jew.

You are reluctant to wear a burka because you know it’s uncomfortable and you think that women, or at least certain women mostly brown, should put up with the discomfort but not you.

Not all muslim women are chaperoned, you won't ask becaise the answer you get may shatter your idiotic beliefs.

Nearly all women who belong to the sects that suppprt the burka are chaperoned.

As for what Muslim women think about the burqa, if you managed to talk to any who don’t wear it, you’d find a fairly diverse range of opinions.

Once again I oppose the ban and the burqa.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The burqua.is acceptable in ireland so nope, fixed fùck all.

Now if they banned skinney scrotes walking around topless in Dublin once it hit 15 degrees, thats a ban i could get.on board with!

Anyway its time for bed, early meeting in Manchester, another day of not worrying about Muslims in a city full of Muslims, how will i ever survive?

But should it?
"Yes" per you and Odhin.

I suppose for you boys, it comes down to being so tolerant, so right on, you cant countenance any concept you associate with the right, or "not the liberal left" somehow, that you see such things as racist/bigoted.

That you're perfectly happy to see your fellow citizens, head to toe in a formless garmet, a garmet steeped in female subjugation, and enslavement, hiding any femine feature or sexuality, a garmet their sisters globally are at various stages of trying to cast off.
So tolerant, you'll bend over to tolerate their intolerance, and overt , unambiguous rejection of you and your norms, if wilfully worn.

So it cant be racist to ban it, when its cultural and religious, but Islam is not a race. At best its bigotry- anti Muslim.
Yet it cant be "anti-Muslim" , when Muslim countries themselves ban it. That whole argument is a busted flush.

Its empirically not anti Muslim. You need a different sthick.



Enjoy Manchester, i might see you over

greencap

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I was in birmingham last week for a cousins 50th.

Me and my son went into the bull ring shopping center to do a spot of shopping. All sorts walking aroind, all nationalitys all colours from all.walks of life.

Wemt into burgerking, (he wasn't happy there no maccies in there as he wanted a happy meal) and there was 2 Muslim women in full attire (was weird watching them drink coffee under the veil).

They had 4 young girls with them, one had a hijab on the other 3 (younger) wore no head dress. Not a single person took any notice of them.

During my hour browsing the shops not a single Muslim attempted to convert me, stab me, chop my head off, ir even look twice at me.

Its amazing and funny how scared some of you are over a piece of cloth.

Well thats a failure by Birmingham and UKs government then.

Now theres a sub-culture in that city of hidden, faceless, individuals, most likely with intolerent, hostile views.

Next time its your cousins birthday and you go to mcdonalds in the bullring and order a coffee or whatever the fck, try asking these anonymous women who dare not tempt the menfolk with their faces lest it anger god their opinions on gays/lesbians, atheists, Jews, lapsed/ex-Muslims.

Maybe even check to see if their husbands just so happen to hold identical opinions, on all major issues, every single time.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Actually you'll survive fine and dandy with not the slightest of worry, as you've stated previously here on boards, that you live in (affulent) Chesire^ county (not Manc, as is alluded to).

In some town/location/area, (that from memory) you described: 'as white as the whitest town in Ireland back in the 1980's'.
‎97.3% ^White
1.7% Asian
0.6% Black
0.4% White Other

Why not leave such idyllic peaceful mono-ethnicity behind, and move down to embrace Newham or Tower Hamlets so as to enjoy the true pleasures of actual multi-culturism.

Live in cheshire, meeting/work is in manchester, am in that city most days of the week and never have issues. But hey, keep hiding under your bed shaking with fear.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Live in cheshire, meeting/work is in manchester, am in that city most days of the week and never have issues. But hey, keep hiding under your bed shaking with fear.

No -one is hiding/in fear T. No-one
And you know this.

Its looking like the last arrow in your quiver of arguments, after the rest of been shot well wide of the mark. A final shoot and run...

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

No -one is hiding/in fear T. No-one
And you know this.

Its looking like the last arrow in your quiver of arguments, after the rest of been shot well wide of the mark. A final shoot and run...

You're not scared of them, you just don't want them in your country? NIMBYism in all its glory.

Odhinn

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This isn't religious discrimination.
.............

Semantic bollocksology It's discriminating against a manifestation of a faith.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Live in cheshire, meeting/work is in manchester, am in that city most days of the week and never have issues. But hey, keep hiding under your bed shaking with fear.

Wow so brave of you to enter the big bad (not) city of Manchester 'some days' of the week and survive to make it back on the train/m'way to your affulent (NIMBY) 97.3% white residency, and all in one peice to wipe the sweat from brow.

Personally found it boring there, sure let us know if you accidently stroll into a Samuri street incident in E1, take a wrong turn down in Parramatta, accidently come across a mass civil disturbance on Mission St or have to resort to WingChun outside LAX when the carpark junkies have a go at your luggage.

jackofalltrades

Odhinn wrote: »

Semantic bollocksology It's discriminating against a manifestation of a faith.

You're a bit touchy aren't you.
It's not mandated in Islam and isn't even specifically mentioned.
It's a "manifestation" for a tiny minority in the Netherlands.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Wow so brave of you to enter the big bad (not) city of Manchester 'some days' of the week and survive to make it back on the train/m'way to your affulent (NIMBY) 97.3% white residency, and all in one peice to wipe the sweat from brow.

Can you show me where i claimed this?

Personally found it boring there, sure let us know if you accidently stroll into a Samuri street incident in E1, take a wrong turn down in Parramatta, accidently come across a mass civil disturbance on Mission St or have to resort to WingChun outside LAX when the carpark junkies have a go at your luggage.

Are these back street dives? Is this even Manchester (England) that you are talking about?

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you show me where i claimed this?

These 97.3% are the offical stats for Chesire county.
You on the other hand claimed here before, that it was along the lines of 'living in a town as white, as 1980's 99% white Ireland'.

An unusual monocultural choice to desire, ah well.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are these back street dives? Is this even Manchester (England) that you are talking about?

If you don't know where LAX is, or even the english postcode of 'E1' you really are living a sheltered life. The others are very interesting areas of larger or more vibrant int'l cities than Manchester, that anyone who's travelled a bit would recognise.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're not scared of them, you just don't want them in your country? NIMBYism in all its glory.

I dont think you know what NIMBYism means, you're using it incorrectly. Im not hypocritical. I dont want them. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. They're an abomination.

Nor have i any interest in accommodating an overt manifestation of the rejection of me, my culture and norms, on purely religious grounds, that necessitates the subjugation of one sex.
Not even their god's demands . A man's.

(I'd probably consider it differently if all of a certain faith practised its wearing, both men and women).
So to paraphrase you lot - I reject their overt bigotry)

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Semantic bollocksology It's discriminating against a manifestation of a faith.

But only when its the Civilised Imperial Western White man doing the banning. Strangely silent when its the brown man doing the banning...

Such white man's guilt.
Such hypocrisy.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

But only when its the Civilised Imperial Western White man doing the banning. Strangely silent when its the brown man doing the banning...

Such white man's guilt.
Such hypocrisy.

You keep attributing to me views I don't have.

blanch152

Anto Lynch wrote: »

I dont buy the whole the goverment shouldnt be allowed tell us what or what not to wear argument. they already do in a way. We are required to wear clothing in public or we'll be arrested. Same thing.

Surely people who are in favour of women being allowed to wear the burqa should also be in favour of the Free the Nipple campaign for women to be allowed go braless and shirtless in public?

It is all about women having a choice?

Odhinn

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You're a bit touchy aren't you.
It's not mandated in Islam and isn't even specifically mentioned.
It's a "manifestation" for a tiny minority in the Netherlands.

..which is why its a mistake to ban it. It gives the coverings a mystique they don't deserve.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

You keep attributing to me views I don't have.

Just playing by the rules. Seems to be a common tactic

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

..which is why its a mistake to ban it. It gives the coverings a mystique they don't deserve.

Well i have to say, thats a novel reason.

biko

How do European people defend an ideology that kills or jails women that removes the niqab or burka?

What is your thinking process? How do you join that thinking with feminism?

Cordell

Odhinn wrote: »

Semantic bollocksology It's discriminating against a manifestation of a faith.

Yes, because that manifestation of faith is unacceptable. And there's plenty of other examples.

Roger Hassenforder

biko wrote: »

How do European people defend an ideology that kills or jails women that removes the niqab or burka?

What is your thinking process? How do you join that thinking with feminism?

Very simple;
White man very bad.
Brown man not bad.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I dont think you know what NIMBYism means, you're using it incorrectly. Im not hypocritical. I dont want them. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. They're an abomination.

Nor have i any interest in accommodating an overt manifestation of the rejection of me, my culture and norms, on purely religious grounds, that necessitates the subjugation of one sex.
Not even their god's demands . A man's.

(I'd probably consider it differently if all of a certain faith practised its wearing, both men and women).
So to paraphrase you lot - I reject their overt bigotry)

Disgusting comment proving you are indeed a bigot and a racist. Don't bother replying because i won't see it.

Timberrrrrrrr

blanch152 wrote: »

Surely people who are in favour of women being allowed to wear the burqa should also be in favour of the Free the Nipple campaign for women to be allowed go braless and shirtless in public?

It is all about women having a choice?

Now thats a campaign i can get behind

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Disgusting comment proving you are indeed a bigot and a racist. Don't bother replying because i won't see it.

Can't argue your point?

Step 1.

Call the poster a racist.

Step 2.

Block them.

Step 3.

Claim superiority.

satguy

They leave their countries and move to the West, but they bring all that baggage and those customs / way of life, that made them leave their bad homes in the first place.

They say that they want a better life for their children, and then turn round and heap all their baggage onto them. The wheel just keeps turning and their lives do not get better, Why ?

Why risk open rafts to get here and not try to westernize, even a little bit.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Well i have to say, thats a novel reason.

Thats what it did in Iran. And you can look at other states - Greece under the Ottomans, Ireland under the British, where the majority were reluctant to "take the soup", despite the advantageous position it would give them.

Roger Hassenforder

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Can't argue your point?

Step 1.

Call the poster a racist.

Step 2.

Block them.

Step 3.

Claim superiority.

He's after been taken to the woodshed and is nowjust crying foul, incapable of actually presenting a coherent arguement.

Also, I suspect he thinks im talking about Muslims/foreigners the way he lost the absolute run of himself.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Thats what it did in Iran. And you can look at other states - Greece under the Ottomans, Ireland under the British, where the majority were reluctant to "take the soup", despite the advantageous position it would give them.

"Funny" though, because today in Iran theres women being imprisoned for 20 years for refusing to wear a hijab...and i must have imagined those Iraqi and Syrian women
dancing and singing on top of piles of their burqas after ISIS were ran out of town.

I suppose you can argue from the past, or from today...

Dog Man Star

Yes, banning women from wearing clothes will solve everything. **** me. What a waste or police resources. I had an eggs benedict today with bacon here in beautiful Perth. There was maybe four, I presume, muslim women eating in same restaurant.

Gorgeous women.