Shooting in Paris at satirical mag

[Lost Leopard Spot]

or - (spotty) - you could just address the question you were asked...

why call muslim women cxnts because they choose wear dress you disapprove of and (allegedly) believe stuff you don't? It's not as obvious a no-brainer of a thing to call someone to me as it seems to be to you.

(also - nobody has said you are "as bad as them" - that's just you being a drama-queen)

Women who wear hijabs in western society have the same mindset as people who slaughter cartoonists... it's called fundamental Islam, or Wahhabism, or Salafists, or Sunni Kilaffaists, or any number of fxckin labels.

[thebish]

or - (spotty) - you could just address the question you were asked...

why call muslim women cxnts because they choose wear dress you disapprove of and (allegedly) believe stuff you don't? It's not as obvious a no-brainer of a thing to call someone to me as it seems to be to you.

(also - nobody has said you are "as bad as them" - that's just you being a drama-queen)

Women who wear hijabs in western society have the same mindset as people who slaughter cartoonists... it's called fundamental Islam, or Wahhabism, or Salafists, or Sunni Kilaffaists, or any number of fxckin labels.

really???

Women who wear hijabs in western society have the same mindset as people who slaughter cartoonists...

I think I might just leave that hanging there as a glowing testament to one of the most startlingly feck-witted things I've ever seen typed on this Forum - and I've been around a good while!!

[Prufrock]

Fourthly: anybody who parades about in a western secular society ina hijab is deliberately grinding that secular societies inclusive policy into the dust.

utter bollox. if a secular society is inclusive - then it should, well, errr... include rather than exclude.

your the most un-leopard like leopard I have ever come across - you should go and join the weasles - you'd be very welcome!

Spot on.

I'm not sure what the word 'secular' is doing in there in the first place. There's no reason by definition why a secular society should be more inclusive or not. Further, being religious isn't an attack on secularity. "Secular" doesn't mean no religion, it just means no religion by the state. An inclusive secular state would, as you say, still allow people to wear the hijab.

In answer to your question above, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to go into a shop in your bike helmet or walk around in public with a balaclava on. That was the weasley way Sarkhozy tried to pretend this wasn't aimed at Muslims whilst still dog-whistling to anyone thinking of defecting to the FN. The c*nt.

No Pru you can parade like a faceless penguin but not wear crash helmets or balaclavas to shop over here, try it see how long before you are arrested or ejected!

Of course you can. If certain shops refuse to serve you, that's their look-out; it's called freedom.

[Hoboh]

Fourthly: anybody who parades about in a western secular society ina hijab is deliberately grinding that secular societies inclusive policy into the dust.

utter bollox. if a secular society is inclusive - then it should, well, errr... include rather than exclude.

your the most un-leopard like leopard I have ever come across - you should go and join the weasles - you'd be very welcome!

Spot on.

I'm not sure what the word 'secular' is doing in there in the first place. There's no reason by definition why a secular society should be more inclusive or not. Further, being religious isn't an attack on secularity. "Secular" doesn't mean no religion, it just means no religion by the state. An inclusive secular state would, as you say, still allow people to wear the hijab.

In answer to your question above, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to go into a shop in your bike helmet or walk around in public with a balaclava on. That was the weasley way Sarkhozy tried to pretend this wasn't aimed at Muslims whilst still dog-whistling to anyone thinking of defecting to the FN. The c*nt.

No Pru you can parade like a faceless penguin but not wear crash helmets or balaclavas to shop over here, try it see how long before you are arrested or ejected!

Of course you can. If certain shops refuse to serve you, that's their look-out; it's called freedom.

So when they refuse to serve woman wearing hijabs it won't be racist or the shit won't hit the fan then? Seeing even the courts have been struggling with this problem I seriously doubt it!

[Hoboh]

Perhaps the time has come to rip down all churches, synagogues, Mosques and chapels and declare a secular non religious society? You can still believe in sky pixies if you like but in private and certainly your views will not be allowed to be taught in our education system. Ban all religious clothing of all faiths would be a good start, your in the West not Pakistan or Iraq or where ever!

I can't believe you're that naive as to think any of those measures will alter a single thing Hoboh. Our whole society is strong because of our right to believe or not is respected. Are you really advocating a Big Brother world where non-conformism (and I'm not talking about the law. which is rooted in The Commandments anyway) ) is punished by the Hoboh militia? Demolish the churches and banish the religious? Dear Lord, that's back to Nazism.

War is and never has been about religion, but being used as a Jets and Sharks, Montserats' and Capulets' territorial bullying and desire for an eye for an eye etc.. Declare your comical sanctions and you'd soon find out that there'd be the greatest war ever seen and would it be about God? Not on your life, it would be, like all other wars, about man and about power, greed and winning and the right to be free of all the things you advocate. Were World Wars I and II about God, or about the very attitudes you state? I thought you had a bit more brain mate. God and religion used as reasons for war are just excuses people award themselves to justify their earthly desires.

I'm totally with Worthy in his views. I sure won't ever be told what to believe.

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

[Prufrock]

Spot on.

I'm not sure what the word 'secular' is doing in there in the first place. There's no reason by definition why a secular society should be more inclusive or not. Further, being religious isn't an attack on secularity. "Secular" doesn't mean no religion, it just means no religion by the state. An inclusive secular state would, as you say, still allow people to wear the hijab.

In answer to your question above, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to go into a shop in your bike helmet or walk around in public with a balaclava on. That was the weasley way Sarkhozy tried to pretend this wasn't aimed at Muslims whilst still dog-whistling to anyone thinking of defecting to the FN. The c*nt.

No Pru you can parade like a faceless penguin but not wear crash helmets or balaclavas to shop over here, try it see how long before you are arrested or ejected!

Of course you can. If certain shops refuse to serve you, that's their look-out; it's called freedom.

So when they refuse to serve woman wearing hijabs it won't be racist or the shit won't hit the fan then? Seeing even the courts have been struggling with this problem I seriously doubt it!

So you won't be arrested then? If you refuse to serve someone wearing one, you're going to lose trade. If you serve them, you're not. It's not a difficult decision. If you refuse to serve someone unless they take their helmet off, they're highly unlikely to shop somewhere else on that basis.

Let's not pretend the reasons for not letting people wear each of those would be the same though. It's the same weasely explanation Sarkhozy gave in France. The reason shops often make people take off helmets or balaclavas is because over the years this has been used as a method in countless robberies to obscure identity. It's not a "human need for facial recognition" - people weren't uneasy because they couldn't see faces - they were uneasy coz they were scared of being robbed. The reason people would want to ban women wearing the niqab is not because of all the robberies they've been committing, is it? So whilst it certainly wouldn't necessarily be racist, I know where my money would be.

If by the way, there were a spate of robberies where people used niqabs, and shopkeepers wouldn't let people in wearing them for fear of robbery, then no, that wouldn't be racist. People trying to strike a balance between the rights they do and don't exercise is not the same as blanket banning of stuff.

[Hoboh]

It has been, it was either Bolton or Blackburn and a terrorist suspect if I'm not mistaken used the hijab to escape detection in Birmingham not too long ago.
How the hell do you know who is underneath one?
It seems we as a society are bending over backwards to accommodate some people whilst suggesting, as you seem to be, anyone wearing a helmet is a robber and we should feel uneasy
Goose, Gander my friend.

[jaffka]

Seems quite obvious to me that wrong doers could and can use something to hide their identity?

In an open and free society why do people need to hide what they look like.

Times have moved on for what the hijab was originally used for.

[Dujon]

... I sure won't ever be told what to believe.

There's every likelihood that you were, TANGO, during your formative years - just as I was. Parents, school and church all have a hand in inculcating children with their own standards. That is quite normal and understandable; if it were not we'd be in a right pickle as a society. I have no doubt whatsoever that, like it or not, those of the Islamic faith do exactly the same. In my life there came a point where I could not reconcile the teachings being offered to me with the reality in which I was living. My parents were both Methodists - my father was a lay preacher of that church - which means that he preached around the local circuit and filled in for sick or absent ministers as required (thebish will understand if no one else does).

Anyway, my 'faith' was diluted by experience and trickled surely but not slowly down the drain of reason. Perhaps that's the difference between me and the fundamentalists of any religion.

[TANGODANCER]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

[Hoboh]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

To you and others the mentally unhinged killers are using it as an excuse but to them it's too bloody real the belief they are acting for their religion so the truth lives in both camps

[William the White]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

[Bruce Rioja]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

And as Michael Portillo's just said "If these people think that they're avenging the prophet and killing infidels then how is that not theological"?

Don't get me wrong, of course they're fecking nutters as far as you and I can see, but they appear to think that they're doing good work.

[Hoboh]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/ottawa/2 ... 13391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aught.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/robbers- ... ce-mombasa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/868 ... ng/?ref=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... burka.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2758/kil ... scape-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Montreal Wanderer]

Not that I should really get into this, but it seems to me there is quite a difference between a hijab and a berka. If a man robbed a bank wearing a hijab it wasn't much of a disguise. It should be illegal for a shop to refuse service to a woman in a hijab - it certainly is here. Fashions and cultures change. Though I have little time for religion (organised or otherwise) my mother used to go to Church (circa 1920-1970) and always wore a hat. If she went shopping, say to Aspinalls, to buy some bacon, she wore a headscarf. Basically women wore head coverings back then as a matter of culture, tradition, etiquette, whatever. Just because women have stopped wearing head coverings in public 40 years later should we criticize women who wear the hijab? I can see the argument against the berka in western society in certain roles, because in many instances we need to see a face.

Hoboh, back in the 1960s we had people who robbed banks in December wearing Santa Claus outfits. Annoying, but we didn't canel Christmas. Don't let the Toronto Sun cause you to rail against headscarfs, and the hijab is basically that.

[Worthy4England]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/ottawa/2 ... 13391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aught.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/robbers- ... ce-mombasa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/868 ... ng/?ref=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... burka.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2758/kil ... scape-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed it makes you wonder how criminals every got away with anything before the burka/hijab came to the UK. They had to walk round with no disguise at all - obviously.

So we should also ban the more normal, standard, black balaclava with two eyeholes cut out as well. And anything else that a cunning bank robber might possibly use as a disguise. Crash helmets, clown masks (dunno how many bank jobs Bobo has gotten away with), large sunglasses (I notice in one report, the master robbers' disguise also involved sunglasses), Mary Quant mudpacks etc. etc.

There are some places where I believe it's not appropriate to wear face coverings. Heading through customs/immigration, going into a bank, giving evidence in court - there's probably more for this list too.

That's a long way short of banning someone walking down the street in burka, hijab, clown mask, large sunglasses...

True story. Working behind a bar in the 1980's. Woman comes in orders a pint of bitter (not particularly outrageous in the pub I was in) - it's around 12:15 in the afternoon. Upon closer inspection the conversation ran like this.

Me: "Fred (name changed), you seem to be attired in women's clothing and wearing a wig. Would you be wanting a slice of lemon with that?"
Fred: "Fcuk off and hurry up, I'm off to a fancy dress do"
Me: "Isn't it a bit early in the day for a fancy dress do?"
Fred: "It was the wife's idea. We've got friends coming round - it's an all weekend party"

Fred downs pint and legs it. Around an hour later Mr Plod turns up with news that a Bank had recently been done with a sawn-off and they were looking for a woman called Fred. I'd known Fred for years (and knew he was shady), point I'm making is, I didn't recognise him until I got about 2 feet away. Amazing how he managed this before we had a plethora of burkas and hijabs to choose from.

Maybe we should ban women's clothing too?

Actually that might not be a bad idea....

Fck me.

[Prufrock]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

Because they said that's why they did it! Because belief in a divine authority and admission into heaven in the afterlife allows people to justify things to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who are these mentally unbalanced killers trying to excuse themselves to? The general public? "Yes, we are deranged nutters bent on committing murder but unless we come up with a convincing back-story we can invent to later use as an excuse we couldn't possibly commit these murders".

Or do you mean an excuse to themselves to explain why they're doing what they're doing? Coz if so that's a pretty good working definition of "their reasons for doing it".

It's damn inconvenient that all these terror attacks that have absolutely nothing at all to do with religion keep being done by people who say they're motivated to do it by, and do it in the name of, their religion.

[Prufrock]

It's because our society is (pretty much) open and free that we, by and large, don't - and shouldn't - make rules about what people wear.

This could, and should, change if our society, here in the UK, is threatened by people adopting a dress, pretending it to be a cultural form of clothing, but really using it to commit crimes.

So - now - it would make the case solid for spotski, hoboh and jaffka if they could demonstrate that this is happening. Offer your evidence, coolly, factually, for the increase in criminality caused by women wearing the niqab.

That's all you have to do, no need for all this shouting, and, surely, since you are so exercised by it all, it should be easy.

Give us the facts, and your sources. I'm listening.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/ottawa/2 ... 13391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aught.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bank.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/robbers- ... ce-mombasa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/868 ... ng/?ref=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... burka.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2758/kil ... scape-u-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indeed it makes you wonder how criminals every got away with anything before the burka/hijab came to the UK. They had to walk round with no disguise at all - obviously.

So we should also ban the more normal, standard, black balaclava with two eyeholes cut out as well. And anything else that a cunning bank robber might possibly use as a disguise. Crash helmets, clown masks (dunno how many bank jobs Bobo has gotten away with), large sunglasses (I notice in one report, the master robbers' disguise also involved sunglasses), Mary Quant mudpacks etc. etc.

There are some places where I believe it's not appropriate to wear face coverings. Heading through customs/immigration, going into a bank, giving evidence in court - there's probably more for this list too.

That's a long way short of banning someone walking down the street in burka, hijab, clown mask, large sunglasses...

True story. Working behind a bar in the 1980's. Woman comes in orders a pint of bitter (not particularly outrageous in the pub I was in) - it's around 12:15 in the afternoon. Upon closer inspection the conversation ran like this.

Me: "Fred (name changed), you seem to be attired in women's clothing and wearing a wig. Would you be wanting a slice of lemon with that?"
Fred: "Fcuk off and hurry up, I'm off to a fancy dress do"
Me: "Isn't it a bit early in the day for a fancy dress do?"
Fred: "It was the wife's idea. We've got friends coming round - it's an all weekend party"

Fred downs pint and legs it. Around an hour later Mr Plod turns up with news that a Bank had recently been done with a sawn-off and they were looking for a woman called Fred. I'd known Fred for years (and knew he was shady), point I'm making is, I didn't recognise him until I got about 2 feet away. Amazing how he managed this before we had a plethora of burkas and hijabs to choose from.

Maybe we should ban women's clothing too?

Actually that might not be a bad idea....

Fck me.

Abso-fecking-lutely.

And, it turns out then when Hoboh said the hijab and I assumed he meant the niqab, he actually did just mean the headscarf!

"Hoboh bans scarves" is bold even for him.

And his evidence for this spate of crimes is 4 stories from the UK and 3 from the rest of the world.

I for one am convinced.

[thebish]

the suspects are now in a car chase on and around the peripherique... won't be long (you'd assume) before they are dead.

My guess is that they won't allow themselves to be arrested... it's been 2 days - they should be in a hut in a Peruvian rainforest by now if they had made serious plans to get away... given that they have barely moved at all suggests no real getaway plan - a car full of weapons and a vague plan to go out in a blaze of bullets and bloodshed

[Worthy4England]

I looked Tango but cannot see where I said anything like that

My point Hoboh, is why bring religion at all to blame because a couple of mentally unbalanced killers go off the rails and try using it as an excuse? Did they kill twelve people and injure a load more because they are rational believers in a God, or because they are, as an age-old description would have them: "Not right"?

Because they said that's why they did it! Because belief in a divine authority and admission into heaven in the afterlife allows people to justify things to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise do.

Who are these mentally unbalanced killers trying to excuse themselves to? The general public? "Yes, we are deranged nutters bent on committing murder but unless we come up with a convincing back-story we can invent to later use as an excuse we couldn't possibly commit these murders".

Or do you mean an excuse to themselves to explain why they're doing what they're doing? Coz if so that's a pretty good working definition of "their reasons for doing it".

It's damn inconvenient that all these terror attacks that have absolutely nothing at all to do with religion keep being done by people who say they're motivated to do it by, and do it in the name of, their religion.

That's where I have a problem with it all.

The thought that some divine being is simultaneously organising and rallying these people isn't one I subscribe to. I know that's not what you're saying either (as you don't believe in the tooth fairy). This is clearly being driven by real people. I do believe that the people carrying out the acts may well believe it's a good and just thing to do in support of their Religion. I don't believe that's what their Religion says, but I do believe that's what some people who are driving this lead them to understand that's what their religion says.

Taking away religion would not get rid of the people doing the "interpreting" around what constitutes an injustice, especially with all the Western involvement in the Middle East over the years. I certainly do not believe that if religion didn't exist, plenty of people in the Middle East wouldn't hate the West and find another banner to rally behind.