Burqa

[niky]

As a piece of health equipment... that's pretty useless. The filtration level of those things are too low to exclude particulates that are floating in the air in many major cities. The only functional use of those is to keep sick people from raining virus-laden spittle on everyone they meet when they cough. And yet, I see dozens of those every time I go into the city. Pretty much, they're the urbanite's equivalent of a burqa. A non-functional comfort blanket.

That is simply not true and insulting. (now don't come with 2nd WW cause just look at the Monroe Experience, all human tends to be burocrates (1/3-5)) I don't want to start comparing liberties and immigration rights of different countries because Europe actually has very open immigrant rights.

And yet Sarkovsky and his people are starting to discriminate against immigrants with proscriptions against Gypsys and now against Muslims. Anti-semitic sentiment was rampant before WWII, and it's a shame to see that many politicians see anti-Islamic sentiment as their ticket to maintaining power over their constituents... not having learned lessons from the past.

Belgium has already banned the Burqa. Spain is looking to. And while this is going on, the European Council is saying that a Burqa ban is not needed or possibly even harmful.

Once you start regulating what people can wear simply because what they wear is an identifier of their ethnicity or religion, you have a problem.

And... let's get this straight. When politicians make noise about the Burqa, security isn't their main concern. It's "women's welfare". Which is bull. No woman likes being forced to wear or not wear something against her will. And, funnily enough, many Burqa wearers who keep on wearing it outside of Muslim countries wear them voluntarily. Banning the burqa is just as oppressive of woman's rights as requiring it.

I remember that case, the rule is that "you can not cover large parts of your body that could hide contentious disease", you are not allowed to swim in a bermuda in that pool either and a lot of people complain about that, but they just do not get the same media attention.

 

[Famine]

1. taking wikipedia as a reliable source is not a good thing to do.

They cite their sources. The CIA World Factbook and... well... the Luxembourg national office for statistics.

Cite yours.

2. i talked about natives (don't know if that's the right word) but that with the 52% i also encounted the people who got a luxemburgish id even if they'd come from different countries (in the same generation) (this was made my the Statec a statistic gouvermental entity)

The estimated 2010 numbers from the above source says:

Population: 502,100
Native Luxembourgers: 285,700 (57%)
Non-native Luxembourgers: 216,400 (43%)
Of which
Portuguese: 79,800 (36.9%)
Italian: 18,200 (8.4%)
French: 29,700 (13.7%)
All other EU: 58,600 (27.1%)
All other non-EU: 30,100 (13.9%)

So, Wikipedia's 2003 numbers* say:
62% native, 38% non-native, 90% of non-natives from EU
Your government's 2003 numbers say:
62% native, 38% non-native, 90% of non-natives from EU
Your government's 2010 numbers say:
57% native, 43% non-native, 86% of non-natives from EU
Your "numbers" say:
48% native, 52% non-native


Wikipedia is more accurate as a source than your uncited source.

*Note: Their population data of 493,500 is the 2009 estimate by your government; their immigration data is the 2003 estimate by your governmnet.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I agree that Wikipedia is generally a good source.

Current data from the statec is from 2001 and less then clear to me.

However the argument from *ibo* S3 Racer is that a lot of people were born in another country lived and studied in that country, after years came to work in Luxembourg and changed nationality then, although having Luxembourgish nationality, they might not follow country habits and culture.

I also want to point out the daily migration streams in Luxembourg:

140.000 people would come and work in Luxembourg daily from the surrounding countries.

Although most EU migrants have hardly a shocking difference from the Luxembourgish population it does teach you to be more tolerant.

To come back to the Burqa discussion:
the requirements are indeed something flexible, e.g. a young kid learned that:
* when his US father tells him off, it is a requirement to look him in the eyes
* when his Japanese mother tells him off, he needs to look at the ground
I do not believe the kid knows why, but for him it is a requirement or the punishment will be harder.

People that have grown up with the requirement for them to wear the Burqa, will see this as a requirement, seeing others not do it might or might not change their mind.
It is the same as a lot of us see it as a requirement not to eat grasshoppers or live worms, dogs... where this is normal in the diet of others. Hindus see it as a requirement not to eat cows.

Now who should adapt to the requirements of the others and how hard should we stick to our requirements and force others to change their requirements is a difficult matter of appreciation.

P.S.: the matter of an over protective family in relationships is certainly not exclusive to the Islam world.

 

[Keef]

Speaking of numbers, I just went through this thread with a pen and a pad and jotted some down. Europe is nearly split on the issue, but is mostly in favor of infringing a muslim woman's rights to wear what she wants with about 60% against the burqa. However, American members are overwhelmingly against this measure, with over 85% supporting the right to wear a burqa. About 65% of posters are European, but only 56% of posters think burqas should be outlawed. The poll shows an even higher percentage, which means there are a bunch of weenies out there who just like voting and not arguing. Probably European.

That was my scientific study for today.

 

[Joel]

Speaking of numbers, I just went through this thread with a pen and a pad and jotted some down. Europe is nearly split on the issue, but is mostly in favor of infringing a muslim woman's rights to wear what she wants with about 60% against the burqa. However, American members are overwhelmingly against this measure, with over 85% supporting the right to wear a burqa. About 65% of posters are European, but only 56% of posters think burqas should be outlawed. The poll shows an even higher percentage, which means there are a bunch of weenies out there who just like voting and not arguing. Probably European.

That was my scientific study for today.

I guess it's just another example of how "barbaric" and "uncivilized" America is, eh?

 

[DK]

1. taking wikipedia as a reliable source is not a good thing to do.)

True, the Wikipedia article on Justin Bieber said "OmG hE iZ tEh BeStEsT!" and at the same time it said "little piece of 🤬 gaylord". But it is reliable when you want to find out stuff on Barack Obama and the Conservapedia article calls him a baby-killer.

 

[Ibonibo]

What i exactly meant with wiki is that is a good an powerful tool but (as i had pushed history classes) sources must be reliable and wiki may not be my first choice because even the sources which back them up can have flaws. (even historic documents have flaws, it is always written by pople who live in different referentiels, and that imprints in the documents)

And Famine :you're right! In fact i was mistaken (it came all from memory). It was the birth rate from foreigners that exceeded native birth rates with 52% . And as i see you like sources to back up but i'm a lazy a.. i read it here www.wort.lu . The major newspaper, is 2-3 months back (it's probably in german).
But still if you look at the evolution with the numbers you backed up, we are very near of it. And it was just to prove the point that not every european country is racy or immigrant unfriendly (neither is the netherlands or the uk)

And the newly nationalized people and double nationalized mess up the stats.

And a new sondation about our population will be made this autumn i think (soon)

 

[niky]

Now who should adapt to the requirements of the others and how hard should we stick to our requirements and force others to change their requirements is a difficult matter of appreciation.

Considering that "our" requirements (and I use this term to denote those of us living in a Western lifestyle) are also continuously changing due to changing culture and society... not too long ago, mini-skirts and bikinis were illegal... and still are, in some places... and to regulate it for political reasons (i.e.: do we ban white clothing because of its KKK connotations? Or do we ban the wearing of crucifixes due to the Inquisition?) is silly. Silly in that it dredges up negative feelings which tend to push different peoples apart rather than letting them find a way to fit together on their own.

P.S.: the matter of an over protective family in relationships is certainly not exclusive to the Islam world.

My Protestant (Dad's Catholic) mother's stand was no marriage till thirty. Some thirty years later, I found out she was actually joking.

 

[Max Powers]

Didn't even read all of what you wrote, but I can say this country is a great in many ways (in fact ranked 7th best country to live in by UNDP last year) but things are starting to get worse, and I think the huge amount immigrants coming here each year (currently well over 10% of the population and increasing fast) is one of the reasons.

This is not about immigrants though, it's about the burqa, so sorry for bringing that up.

About the burqa, they're coming here, not the other way around, so I think they should adapt to our society, not the other way around, and if they don't like it here they can simply go home.

Now you're saying "no one should adapt to anything, we should mix everything together", but I don't think it's that easy because our cultures and valuations are so different it's like comparing day and night.

Racism is cool. I think it's funny how some europeans accuse us Americans of having these prejudiced 'redneck' attitudes, and then their governments are even more prejudiced than ours is.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

^^Oh god....

 

[YSSMAN]

Drummed up? Probably just brought to the limelight. I doubt that westerners now are any more tolerant of Arabs than they were ten years ago... or twenty... or thirty.

Presumably. Living in Michigan, we've had a large number of Muslims living throughout the state for the better part of a century. I'd say they're well integrated, and they are valued members of our part of society. Anywhoo, they're building some Mosques here in town, and there are a decent number of people who aren't too happy. I can't figure out, or well... understand, why.

 

[Famine]

Racism is cool. I think it's funny how some europeans accuse us Americans of having these prejudiced 'redneck' attitudes, and then their governments are even more prejudiced than ours is.

Remember though that European governments can be elected into power with an even smaller percentage of the popular vote than GWB managed. In fact the UK currently has a government that is made up of two different parties after everyone decided they didn't want any of them.

And that, generally, European governments have a socialist bent and socialism doesn't get on well with immigration.

 

[Ibonibo]

For the Burka : Allowed in cars or not (for the driver)???

I think it is forbidden in almost every european country for security reasons, as are forbidden all veils of the face in cars for drivers : helmet (yes even racing helmets are forbidden on public roads), hockey mask, welding mask.

As for the american being racist : I think you came a long way, and your choice for an afroamerican president proves that a large % of you are very open. Also in this thread the americans involved showed that they have really a large acceptance and understanding of freedom for everybody.

But Amercia also has still some of this ****heads. Yesterday i was reading and watching this and i was to say at least shocked (read all the racist comments about Obama being a big N)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...s-son-obama-is-the-worst-president-in-history

I really tryed to stay out of this but the comments on yahoo really shocked me

 

[Famine]

helmet (yes even racing helmets are forbidden on public roads)

Untrue - though often assumed to be true.

You can be ticketed for wearing a helmet if the police officer believes it restricts your ability to observe, but there are no specific regulations banning helmets (open or full-face) on the road and you can challenge any such ticket in court really easily. WRC drivers go between stages on the public road wearing helmets and, once again, we have to bring up motorcyclists who seem to get on fine wearing them.

 

[Ibonibo]

In germany there was a trail because of a burka. Sentence was a veiling of the face is forbidden (even if often you just get off with a warning)

Also legislation is probably unclear on helmet wear, it is probably forbidden to cover up (in most european countries) your face in cars (not talking of cars like a arial, xbow, renault spider) if it reduces your field of view and your face is not recognizable (for radars)

I wouldn't dare it. And don't have time and money to try to get it through a court

 

[Famine]

In germany there was a trail because of a burka. Sentence was a veiling of the face is forbidden (even if often you just get off with a warning)

That's not a helmet - and I suspect easily challenged. I'll address this in the next part:

Also legislation is probably unclear on helmet wear, it is probably forbidden to cover up (in most european countries) your face in cars (not talking of cars like a arial, xbow, renault spider) if it reduces your field of view and your face is not recognizable (for radars)

UK road laws are very similar to EU road laws except in specifics of speed, signing and roadworthiness. And here's the problem with saying "covering your face is forbidden".

There are no rules which distinguish the general conduct of road users from each other. Motorcyclists, cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers must all abide by the same overall set of rules (with the recognition that the variation in speed, signing and roadworthiness may cover the different sets of users). There cannot (I stress again, cannot) be any rules which say what certain sets of road users can wear or cannot wear, only rules which say what they must wear. Since motorcyclists must wear a helmet for their protection, helmets are not illegal for any other road user.

You cannot permit helmet wear for "certain types of car" but not others. As far as the MoT/TUV and vehicle licensing bodies are concerned, a car is a car is a car - there are no rules which say "An Ariel Atom driver can wear n, but a Renault Clio driver cannot.". If an Ariel Atom driver can wear it, a Clio driver can wear it. If a motorcyclist can wear it, a lorry driver can wear it. Helmets are not illegal wear items.

Where it may be compulsory for a motorcyclist to wear a helmet, if a Clio driver does it, it's voluntary. Now we have a situation where a driver is covering their face and they are behaving within the confines of road traffic laws. The specific act of covering the face, thus, cannot be a contravention of road traffic law.

I wouldn't dare it. And don't have time and money to try to get it through a court

If you are found innocent, you don't have to pay anything.

 

[Neal]

On the topic of helmets and head wear, in the UK it is legal to ride a motorbike without one for someone wearing a turban for religious reasons.

 

[Scaff]

On the topic of helmets and head wear, in the UK it is legal to ride a motorbike without one for someone wearing a turban for religious reasons.

83

On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban. Helmets MUST comply with the Regulations and they MUST be fastened securely. Riders and passengers of motor tricycles and quadricycles, also called quadbikes, should also wear a protective helmet. Before each journey check that your helmet visor is clean and in good condition.

Section 83 of the highway code agrees with you (but you do have to be a Sikh - you can't just pop a Turban on).

Source - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854


Scaff

 

[Famine]

Oh, for a First Amendment.

 

[Neal]

Section 83 of the highway code agrees with you (but you do have to be a Sikh - you can't just pop a Turban on).

Source - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854


Scaff

Thank you, I thought it was just Sikh's but was 100% sure so covered it with "for religious reasons". Turns out I did remember what my instructor told me many many years ago.

*leaves discussion*

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If you are found innocent, you don't have to pay anything.

Tend to disagree with this one, you are paid back, which means if you do not put up with the money in the first place you never get to the point to win.

Europe is nearly split on the issue, but is mostly in favor of infringing a muslim woman's rights to wear what she wants with about 60% against the burqa. However, American members are overwhelmingly against this measure, with over 85% supporting the right to wear a burqa.
About 65% of posters are European, but only 56% of posters think burqas should be outlawed.

Like this one.
Had a bit of difficulty with the conclusion:

The poll shows an even higher percentage, which means there are a bunch of weenies out there who just like voting and not arguing. Probably European.

1) 56% (your calculation) to 57% (poll) seems a very small difference.
2) From my data 65% Europe + 60% pro restriction so 35% US with 85% pro freedom; I come to expected vote of 56% pro freedom from the thread.
3) For me a conclusion could be: Americans that think anti freedom shut their mouth. But it does not have any more basis then your conclusion.

And that, generally, European governments have a socialist bent and socialism doesn't get on well with immigration.

A strange idea for me. The study discussed in this article (sorry in Dutch) points that the communist and socialist parties in flanders had most people from other origins on their election lists.
Nationalism does not get on well with immigration, that is clear.

 

[Famine]

Tend to disagree with this one, you are paid back, which means if you do not put up with the money in the first place you never get to the point to win.

This one is probably subject to country-to-country legal system variation then.

I know if I go to court to defend myself and win, my legal costs have to be paid by the prosecution.

A strange idea for me. The study discussed in this article (sorry in Dutch) points that the communist and socialist parties in flanders had most people from other origins on their election lists.
Nationalism does not get on well with immigration, that is clear.

It's not that socialists don't get on with immigration, but socialism (which isn't really a contradiction - socialism is inherently inconsistent with itself).

The ultimate expression of socialism is that everyone has access to the same services "free" - everything is in government hands and there is little private enterprise (so almost everyone who works is employed by the government) - paid for through taxation*. Communism is that plus everyone has the same amount of money*. If you introduce refugee migration to that (many Islamic-origin immigrants are refugees, rather than economic migrants), you have a lot of net takers in the system and everyone in that system is a little worse off. You'd also have no economic migration - people wouldn't be better off in your country - and you couldn't allow emigration as your net givers would leave the system for economic reasons and everyone left would be worse off.

Migration harms a socialist system, so it's little surprise that many who view socialism as ideal are also against general freedoms that make them suspicious and non-economic immigration. They're also usually against other people having money and anything that takes their own money. It is also far more common to find a socialist nationalist (or a National Socialist - no comment) than a capitalist one.


*Simplification

 

[Keef]

Like this one.
Had a bit of difficulty with the conclusion:


1) 56% (your calculation) to 57% (poll) seems a very small difference.
2) From my data 65% Europe + 60% pro restriction so 35% US with 85% pro freedom; I come to expected vote of 56% pro freedom from the thread.
3) For me a conclusion could be: Americans that think anti freedom shut their mouth. But it does not have any more basis then your conclusion.

The hell are you on about?

I went through the thread and tallied each individual poster, their location, and their stance on the subject. I reported approximate percentages that I came up with. The poll has more voters than the thread has posters. Because most of the posters are European and most of those Europeans are pro-restriction, it's perfectly safe to assume that the people who voted against the burqa but did not post were probably European. I apologize that you Europeans typically dislike Muslims and support infringing their rights, but it's not my problem.

If an American has the same view as you concerning the burqa (anti-freedom), then why should he shut his mouth? My conclusion that Europeans dislike Muslims is based on the results of this thread and poll, but your conclusion seems to be based on nothing at all. Especially considering that whatever math equation you're trying to show isn't making much sense for me, and your expectation of mostly pro freedom is in direct opposition to the poll.

 

[Bram Turismo]

My conclusion that Europeans dislike Muslims is based on the results of this thread and poll,

Careful with your conclusion there, Keef

Because I agree with the banning of burkhas in public doesn't mean I don't like Muslims. In fact, I know a bunch of people that are Muslim and they are fantastic people to be with. But I do admit that a large part of these people come over here with a lot of noise, and generally want everything to go their way. I even met a guy who talked neither English or Norwegian, which makes me wonder how he ever got to this place, let alone buy a house and get a job.

 

[Keef]

I see. You get along with them just fine...as long as they're not allowed to wear what they want to wear. High five!

 

[Sureboss]

I think the banning of the burqa is utterly stupid and a waste of resources considering it applies to almost none of the population. It's only going to aggravate tensions between various communities, which as we have experience of in France, isn't that great anyway.

Not to mention it being wrong. I'd be very angry if it ever got passed in the UK. Doesn't take much to respect peoples choices. I understand it has security risks in certain areas, but there are ways around it, in airports and banks there will (or should) be procedures in place where a female member of staff can check their identity.

I just don't see any benefit of such a ban.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I see. You get along with them just fine...as long as they're not allowed to wear what they want to wear. High five!

Those I know don't wear a burkha, I'd like to know who the hell I'm talking to.

 

[Keef]

You only socialize with Muslims who don't wear burqas, there's nothing wrong with that. But then what's the sense of infringing the rights of Muslims who do wear them if it doesn't affect you in any way?

 

[Bram Turismo]

But then what's the sense of infringing the rights of Muslims who do wear them if it doesn't affect you in any way?

Because it benefits them and it opens up a whole lot of options for them. Have you ever seen a women wearing a burkha working as an architect or doctor?

I'm not against it because I don't like burkhas, I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society.

 

[Tornado]

Because it benefits them

Why is it up to you to make this decision for them?

and it opens up a whole lot of options for them.

It doesn't do this.