Paris, France (CNN) -- France's lower house of parliament Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ban on any veils that cover the face -- including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women.
The vote was 335 to 1.
The measure must still go to the French Senate before it becomes law. The Senate is expected to vote on it in the week of September 20.
Amnesty International immediately condemned the vote.
"A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab in public as an expression of their identity or beliefs," said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's expert on discrimination in Europe.
French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey this spring.
Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed.
Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found.
The French Council of Ministers approved the measure in May, saying veils that cover the face "cannot be tolerated in any public place." Their approval sent the bill to parliament.
The parliamentary vote is the latest step in France's efforts to ban the burqa, niqab and other Muslim garments that cover a woman's face.
A panel of French lawmakers recommended a ban last year, and lawmakers unanimously passed a non-binding resolution in May calling the full-face veil contrary to the laws of the nation.
"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.
The bill envisions a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil.
Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."
The measure would take effect six months after passage, giving authorities time to try to persuade women who veil themselves voluntarily to stop.
The French Council of State has warned that the ban could be incompatible with international human rights laws and the country's own constitution. The council advises on laws, but the government is not required to follow its recommendations.
If the French bill is approved by the upper house and signed into law, it will be the first national ban in Europe on the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes.
The hijab, which tightly covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently would not be banned by either law. However, a 2004 law in France bans the wearing or displaying of overt religious symbols in schools -- including the wearing of headscarves by schoolgirls.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that France has about 3.5 million Muslims, or about 6 percent of the population.
France does not keep its own statistics on religious affiliation of the population, in keeping with its laws requiring the state to be strictly secular.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/13/france.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=T2
There go those "silly Europeans" that people in this country love to decry doing something controversial. What I find interesting is that the citizens of France support the ban by a margin of more than 4:1. However, we silly Americans don't seem to support the ban. We are against it by a margin of 2:1. Now why -- when this is something that the security minded (read scared) Americans should be supporting -- are they not supporting it?
I, for one, support it and think the French are right in banning it.
Quote from: me on July 13, 2010, 02:04:16 PM
I, for one, support it and think the French are right in banning it.
ditto!!.. ;)
I would support it, too. You can bet your life that if we tried to do that here the ACLU would be out in full force. Separation of church and state, freedom of speech and more.
Quote from: Anne on July 13, 2010, 02:49:08 PM
I would support it, too. You can bet your life that if we tried to do that here the ACLU would be out in full force. Separation of church and state, freedom of speech and more.
Those are some of the same issues being raised by Amnesty International in the case of the French ban. While I haven't researched the motivations behind these moves by the French, this clearly is a national security type of issue just as much as it is a religious one.
From security at airports, to simply a cop pulling over someone on the streets, the burqas can be used to mask the identity of terrorists, criminals, etc., and aid them in avoiding detection and capture by law enforcement. Even men could cover up in a burqa to mask their identity.
So the question is, where is the line drawn between freedom of religion and expression vs. security interests of the general public?
< aside >
If we went with my theory, and simply expunged all religion from humankind, we wouldn't even need to have these sorts of conversations to begin with. :wink:
< /aside >
But you would still have the same issues concerning traditional dress, freedom of speech, etc.
There is a price to pay for freedom, and sometimes that price includes risks that may infringe upon individual / public security or the perceptions of it.
If this type of law were to be enacted in the US, how long before they begin banning things like thongs, bikinis, wife beater t shirts, etc.?
I suppose you could limit the ban to clothing which would hide the identity of the person, veils, large floppy hats, etc. The things you mention could hardly be used to hide weapons or a person's identity.
Quote from: me on July 13, 2010, 02:04:16 PM
I, for one, support it and think the French are right in banning it.
Why?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 03:40:27 PM
There is a price to pay for freedom, and sometimes that price includes risks that may infringe upon individual / public security or the perceptions of it.
If this type of law were to be enacted in the US, how long before they begin banning things like thongs, bikinis, wife beater t shirts, etc.?
Well, I think it's great. These women are made to wear the damn things and besides that some murdering Taliban man could be hiding in one with a bomber belt and blow up and kill one large group of people. If the Muslim religion won't give the women freedom maybe the government will.
Vive la France. I wonder what would happen if a couple of hundred of Burqa wearing people walking around Wall Street, World Trade Center or board an airplane.
Quote from: Olias on July 13, 2010, 03:48:51 PM
Why?
First of all, I don't know the constitution of France, IF it is in violation of it or not...but, I DO understand some concern with the security measures...the burka is also representation of repression of womens rights....women are FORCED to wear them or face serious repercussions from it's religion....we, in the United States outlawed Polygamy, for similar reasons. I understand the concern for it's ban....i think there could be real concern, if a load of burka covered folks was to board an airplane, I know I would not be very comfortable.
Quote from: Anne on July 13, 2010, 03:45:12 PM
I suppose you could limit the ban to clothing which would hide the identity of the person, veils, large floppy hats, etc. The things you mention could hardly be used to hide weapons or a person's identity.
And then halloween masks, face paint, body paint, civilian camo, no more costumes, no more hats, no more people dressed up like bats! You knew damned good and well where I was going with that. . . :rolleyes:
:icon_twisted:
Your tactics are reminiscent of an individual I will not associate with. . .
:confused:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 13, 2010, 04:18:11 PM
First of all, I don't know the constitution of France, IF it is in violation of it or not...but, I DO understand some concern with the security measures...the burka is also representation of repression of womens rights....women are FORCED to wear them or face serious repercussions from it's religion....we, in the United States outlawed Polygamy, for similar reasons. I understand the concern for it's ban....i think there could be real concern, if a load of burka covered folks was to board an airplane, I know I would not be very comfortable.
There you go sitting in judgment of a religion that is different than your own. "You can't do that"? Why? Because it makes you personally uncomfortable? Tough luck there bucko. They aren't hurting anyone.
They have to go through the very same security measures that everyone else does, and if you do not trust those measures to properly screen out those who would do us harm, then why have them in the first place?
One of my daughters has been to Indy 3 times in the last 8 months, and has had to go through the full body scanner/sniffer at Indpls all three times. But do you hear us bitching about it? NO!
These draconian measures are all fine and dandy because they do not impact you personally. . . YET. But when they do you'll be screaming like a little piglet!
I like the ban. Plus there is nothing I like the Muslim Religion. I think it is evil and very disrespective of the women. If I had the power, I would give the Muslim women total power over the men. Let the fun begin. The poor bastards.
Quote from: The Troll on July 13, 2010, 05:41:36 PM
I like the ban. Plus there is nothing I like the Muslim Religion. I think it is evil and very disrespective of the women. If I had the power, I would give the Muslim women total power over the men. Let the fun begin. The poor bastards.
What you like has nothing to do with the matter. Hell, I don't like any religion what so ever, so personally it wouldn't bother me to imprison every single practitioner of every single religion in the world. But that also doesn't matter.
What matters is maintaining control of our personal lives, human, and individual rights, and laws like the one being run up the flagpole in France are trampling all over them! Once the bastards are able to restrict the clothing you wear and how you wear it, how long before they begin entering our homes and bedrooms too? You all know I am right about this, the government will push the limits and exceed them whenever they can, and they've been trying to break down the doors to our homes for decades.
When it serves the corporations purpose, they'll get in too, and laws like this one are the foothold they need to impose corporate will upon every single private citizen in the country.
It occurs to me that laws such as this one are indicative of the centuries old struggle for superiority within the world by religion, and the fact that it goes on even today.
Move back in time a few centuries and you will find Christians killing those who are non-believers in the name of "God". Back then Christians were in the role muslims assume in todays society. And for a period of time it was Christians against the muslims, and that one never did really end now did it?
Christians killed and oppressed whomever and whatever they needed to to obtain superiority in the world, and eventually it worked. Now Muslims are repeating the pattern in the hope that their religion will obtain control of the majority. Big surprise huh? :rolleyes:
I'd like to assume that Christians eventually learned their lesson surrounding killing in the name of "God", but the reality is they have not. They are just more creative about it. Now they use national government to do their bidding globally, and they have issued a dead or alive poster on Muslims.
Laws like this one are persecuting individuals for their religion. That is wrong, and one would think an American would automatically get that. But no, fear and religious bigotry blind them. . .until it is too late. . .
How do you feel about not requiring burka clad women to have their picture taken without their veil? I think France has a fairly large population of muslims. Perhaps they are concerned about sucicide bombers which would not be subject to scanners like they have in airports. Anyway it is their business, not ours.
Quote from: Anne on July 13, 2010, 06:14:08 PM
Anyway it is their business, not ours.
Actually, it may very well be our business, and in fact, right here in my state of Florida, it already has been. Earlier this decade, a judge ruled against a woman who wanted to have her driver's license picture taken with her burqa on. The judge ruled that driving in Florida is a privilege, not a right; and as such, the burqa had to be removed if the woman wanted to get a license to drive in this state.
The converse of that, however, is that in this country, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Any such attempt to ban burqas in this country would most likely be found unconstitutional even by the conservative leaning SCOTUS that we have now. The Constitution guarantees women the right to freedom of religion, even if they exercise that freedom by imprisoning themselves in a form of religion that masks their public identity and subjugates their role in society to that of the man. :wink:
Now again I ask, where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion? None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. :razz:
Quote from: Locutus on July 13, 2010, 06:45:38 PM
Now again I ask, where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion? None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. :razz:
If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken. And to answer your question, security should come before religion. The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.
Quote from: me on July 13, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken. And to answer your question, security should come before religion.
I agree here. None of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are absolutes, and this is just as true for freedom of religion as it is for any other. I'm fine with women and burqas up until they apply for a legal form of identification or present themselves at an airport security checkpoint.
Quote from: me on July 13, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.
But is that really where this law is directed? I would have much less problem with it if it addressed security related issues like the ones I mentioned here in this post. This is a broad sweeping law that appears to be more discriminatory in nature than anything that's attempting to address security.
I found a line in Locutus's press release that I like a whole lot. Here it is:
Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine
I would like to see the fine a little higher though -- high enough to pay the woman's legal fees in the divorce, let her select a new wardrobe, and pay for some classes on resume writing and interviewing for that job she needs to get, now that all her earthly needs won't be met by her owner ... excuse me, husband.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 06:00:59 PM
Move back in time a few centuries and you will find Christians killing those who are non-believers in the name of "God".
Oh, you don't need to go back all that far, Palehorse. Didn't Scott Roeder claim to be doing "god's work" when he murdered George Tiller?
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 03:40:27 PM
There is a price to pay for freedom, and sometimes that price includes risks that may infringe upon individual / public security or the perceptions of it.
. . .
That being said, the line has already been clearly drawn by the US Constitution surrounding:
Quote from: Locutus on July 13, 2010, 06:45:38 PM
. . . where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion? None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. :razz:
Government cannot persecute individuals on the basis of religion, nor can it infringe upon the practices of a religion when said practices do not constitute a real and present danger to the well being and safety of the public in general. Dress, in and of itself, does not meet this benchmark despite what personal fears and unrealistic imaginations may assume.
The best the law can hope to do is to create policies that address the "symptoms", that do not infringe upon the individual and religious rights of the individual, and remediate the fears of the general public, no matter how unrealistic they may be.
Quote from: me on July 13, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken. And to answer your question, security should come before religion. The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.
Answered already:
Quote from: Locutus on July 13, 2010, 06:42:22 PM
. . . Earlier this decade, a judge ruled against a woman who wanted to have her driver's license picture taken with her burqa on. The judge ruled that driving in Florida is a privilege, not a right; and as such, the burqa had to be removed if the woman wanted to get a license to drive in this state.
. . .
I do not disagree with this line of reasoning and I believe it to be well within governmental authority.
Each and every time situations such as this one in France come up, the terrorists win. The global community is feeding its fear in exchange for a panacea that in the end is meaningless, but fuels the oppositions anger and validates its propaganda. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in terrorism this is just as true as it ever was.
Until we change the basic thinking of those who hate and those who live in fear, we are doomed to repeating history and failing to learn the lessons within it.
Fear them and they win. Attempt to restrict their actions and you end up only restricting yourselves and removing your own freedoms until you eventually become that which you now detest; by your own hand!
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 05:49:11 PM
What you like has nothing to do with the matter. Hell, I don't like any religion what so ever, so personally it wouldn't bother me to imprison every single practitioner of every single religion in the world. But that also doesn't matter.
What matters is maintaining control of our personal lives, human, and individual rights, and laws like the one being run up the flagpole in France are trampling all over them! Once the bastards are able to restrict the clothing you wear and how you wear it, how long before they begin entering our homes and bedrooms too? You all know I am right about this, the government will push the limits and exceed them whenever they can, and they've been trying to break down the doors to our homes for decades.
When it serves the corporations purpose, they'll get in too, and laws like this one are the foothold they need to impose corporate will upon every single private citizen in the country.
WOW, Palehorse on his highhorse. I don't care what people do in private, but when they run around completely covered from head to foot, I don't like and I don't care what you think about that.
Try walking into a large bank, a city, county, state, federal office where a armed cop is with a ski mask, a halloween mask or Panty hose over your head and see what happens. If you get your ass shot off see how much money you would get in a law suit with me of the jury. :biggrin: :yes:
Quote from: The Troll on July 13, 2010, 07:36:37 PM
WOW, Palehorse on his highhorse. I don't care what people do in private, but when they run around completely covered from head to foot, I don't like and I don't care what you think about that.
Try walking into a large bank, a city, county, state, federal office where a armed cop is with a ski mask, a halloween mask or Panty hose over your head and see what happens. If you get your ass shot off see how much money you would get in a law suit with me of the jury. :biggrin: :yes:
Apples and oranges, but in that same vein I am sure there are hundreds of burqa wearing women in US banks each and every day. . . I don't see the problem. . .
The majority of people don't care what you do behind the doors of your own home, and that is as it should be. In fact, look at the Goth people of this nation and tell me that this type of policy within the US would not negatively impact them! You know damned good and well that the government will not stop at burqas if this nation were to pass such stupid legislation. It is religious persecution and infringement upon human rights, no matter what square centimeter of soil on this earth you want to enact it upon. You start there and it expands as time passes. . .
If muslims cannot wear their burqas, then Jews should not wear their yamakas, Christians should not wear crucifixes, blah, blah, blah. That is the path this kind of legislation would take in the US. . .
WHOOOOSSSSHHH!
That was the sound of PH's point flashing over the Troll's head.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 13, 2010, 07:45:33 PM
WHOOOOSSSSHHH!
That was the sound of PH's point flashing over the Troll's head.
:biggrin:
Harry would say, "Hey! Hey!" :biggrin:
One thing is for certain though; France passes this law and the whole world knows where the next high profile initiative of the terrorists is going to take place! :yes:
Might as well wave a giant red flag at an angry bull. . . :biggrin:
It will be sad to see the tower fall though. . . But then maybe those English Grapes will make a resurgence! :sneaky: :rotfl: :LIS:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 13, 2010, 07:45:33 PM
WHOOOOSSSSHHH!
That was the sound of PH's point flashing over the Troll's head.
I don't know what Palehorse said that went WHOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH over my head, but nothing he said change my feeling about the Burqa or the Muslims.
:super: :WHOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH................................
Quote from: The Troll on July 13, 2010, 08:04:47 PM
I don't know what Palehorse said that went WHOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH over my head...
Yeah, I know.
Quote from: The Troll on July 13, 2010, 07:36:37 PM
WOW, Palehorse on his highhorse. I don't care what people do in private, but when they run around completely covered from head to foot, I don't like and I don't care what you think about that.
Try walking into a large bank, a city, county, state, federal office where a armed cop is with a ski mask, a halloween mask or Panty hose over your head and see what happens. If you get your ass shot off see how much money you would get in a law suit with me of the jury. :biggrin: :yes:
As long as it isn't his hobby-horse or even stick-horse, I think we're okay. :biggrin:
I think banning them or being concerned about them is silly. It's just the face that seems to be the issue, because the rest of the ensemble isn't much different than a habit or the dresses the monks and pope wear. If you think about it, if any of these people were up to no good, the billowing outfit would be large enough to hide the real danger. The facial area? Not so much. :no:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 13, 2010, 08:05:36 PM
Yeah, I know.
You know I was thinking maybe I was wrong about Burqs.
They keep women down and in their place. Not letting them take a place in society. Keeping them in their second class statist for thousands of years.
Not like here in America, where we have these smart mouth broads (alligators mouths) Who wear hardly nothing, letting everything hang out. Just daring you to touch something. Who, if you lined a whole group of them together ear to ear you would have one big wind tunnel. Having they flying around like a large mob of crows. CAW, CAW, CAW. Crying they want more freedom, they have glass celings and how their are sexaully harrased. How they work twice as hard for half the money. :'( :'( :'( :rolleyes:
OK, I think Burqa are all right, let them wear them. Happy, Lolly. :'( :'( :'( :yes:
Happy Bastille Day. Maybe France is passing the bill as a kind of nostalgic tribute. They are freeing women from the horrors of garments that restrict their freedom of motion, and men from the frustration of women in garments that restrict their freedom of motion. (jiggle, jiggle)
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 05:35:28 PM
There you go sitting in judgment of a religion that is different than your own. "You can't do that"? Why? Because it makes you personally uncomfortable? Tough luck there bucko. They aren't hurting anyone.
tell that to the folks who died on 9/11.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 14, 2010, 08:28:09 AM
tell that to the folks who died on 9/11.....
The guys who hijacked the planes wore burqas? Really? Far-freakin' out!
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 07:44:47 PM
Apples and oranges, but in that same vein I am sure there are hundreds of burqa wearing women in US banks each and every day. . . IIf muslims cannot wear their burqas, then Jews should not wear their yamakas, Christians should not wear crucifixes, blah, blah, blah. That is the path this kind of legislation would take in the US. . .
again, Apples and oranges...........a yamaka or a crucifix does not deter any security measures.............covering your entire body does.....I understand your arguements, but the facts IS, we DO have "some" muslims who ARE out to kill Americans....people ARE on edge......the people of France, by a large number have concerns with their safety........and a side note, I cannot think of a Christian or Jewish requirement where a woman's rights are also as demeaning as this one is..........where are the women's rights groups?...those womens groups get pissed at Christians against abortions......why shouldn't they be pissed at a religion where a woman is shamed into NOT being able to show her face in public?
I know and the MOST priceless thing is that people who bomb abortion clinics are given a pass b/c "they're not real Christians" and "not representative of the true Christian community". So why don't these men get passes for "not being real Muslims"? Seriously? People in the "Muslim community" have said that they're not truely representative of their faith. But interestingly enough, that's met w/an eye-roll from the Christian community. You'd think that, they, above anyone else, would understand that thought process.
So I say, let's strip the nuns! We have NO way of knowing what's under those habits?
What's that? The nuns haven't bombed an abortion clinic? Women in burkas didn't participate in 9/11.
Newsflash: There are Christians who hate Americans.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 14, 2010, 08:29:21 AM
The guys who hijacked the planes wore burqas? Really? Far-freakin' out!
What about the guy dressed in a Burqa got on a bus in Isreral one morning loaded with school children and killed practially eveybody on it. Yeah, nobody in Burqas kill anyone. There many other cases of women dressed in Burqas blowing themselves up and killing other people. Yeah, your right, as you're aways are. When are you going to start wearing one. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Lolly going to work in your Burqa. :rotfl: :rotfl: Your breaking me up. :stop:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 14, 2010, 08:48:41 AM
I know and the MOST priceless thing is that people who bomb abortion clinics are given a pass b/c "they're not real Christians" and "not representative of the true Christian community". So why don't these men get passes for "not being real Muslims"? Seriously? People in the "Muslim community" have said that they're not truely representative of their faith. But interestingly enough, that's met w/an eye-roll from the Christian community. You'd think that, they, above anyone else, would understand that thought process.
So I say, let's strip the nuns! We have NO way of knowing what's under those habits?
What's that? The nuns haven't bombed an abortion clinic? Women in burkas didn't participate in 9/11.
I know they check out Nuns. I seen them take one back to a search room, by a woman security cop.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 14, 2010, 08:50:23 AM
Newsflash: There are Christians who hate Americans.
NO SHIT! :spot:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 14, 2010, 08:48:41 AM
I know and the MOST priceless thing is that people who bomb abortion clinics are given a pass b/c "they're not real Christians" and "not representative of the true Christian community". So why don't these men get passes for "not being real Muslims"? Seriously? People in the "Muslim community" have said that they're not truely representative of their faith. But interestingly enough, that's met w/an eye-roll from the Christian community. You'd think that, they, above anyone else, would understand that thought process.
So I say, let's strip the nuns! We have NO way of knowing what's under those habits?
What's that? The nuns haven't bombed an abortion clinic? Women in burkas didn't participate in 9/11.
I can buy that one.....my only argument is that like 80% of the french are in favor of this move...they see things going on that we may not.......people in general, are not comforable with this radical islamic movement...............and, YES, I know there are radical Christian (by name) out there.......sometimes things are not cut and dry......this whole 'burka' thing simply has way too many issues, that not only disturbs those who have safety precautions, but there is this 'women being put in their place' thing that seems to be a whole seperate issue...that should be troublesome to ALL freedom loving people.
Quote from: Palehorse on July 13, 2010, 07:54:17 PM
But then maybe those English Grapes will make a resurgence! :sneaky: :rotfl: :LIS:
:me: :lol: :trustme: :clap: :yeah: :food5: :wine: :food4: :wacko: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :duo: :hang: :piano: :cheshire: :bliss: :no1:
Well yeah, I think all women, regardless of faith, who live a life of subservience should shake off the shackles be they literal or figurative. That would include everyone from burka wearing women to those living the Christian submissive BS.
Hey! What about every one of those overweight people who wear very large clothing? How do we know they are overweight? What's that mysterious lump there?
I say we strip EVERYBODY nekkid so we don't have a thing to hide (literally :smile:).
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 14, 2010, 10:42:08 AM
I say we strip EVERYBODY nekkid so we don't have a thing to hide (literally :smile:).
Given the general health of our population and the epidemic of obesity, I don't think that would be a pretty picture.
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/)
Yeah, but, aside from the continuous gagging and hurling, we'd be much safer!!!!
:biggrin:
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 14, 2010, 10:42:08 AM
Hey! What about every one of those overweight people who wear very large clothing? How do we know they are overweight? What's that mysterious lump there?
I say we strip EVERYBODY nekkid so we don't have a thing to hide (literally :smile:).
What about being over weight. About the only thing good I can say about it is, you can't see the Colt 45 I'm carrying, you would thing it's just an old fat man and that lump is fat. Just another old fat man that would be easy to take down. :biggrin: :wink: :biggrin:
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 14, 2010, 11:47:41 AM
Yeah, but, aside from the continuous gagging and hurling, we'd be much safer!!!!
:biggrin:
If I have to look at this in the airport, I would rather you blow my ass to smithereens!
(http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/fatfaeries1.jpg)
^^^
:puke:
Quote from: The Troll on July 14, 2010, 07:36:29 AM
You know I was thinking maybe I was wrong about Burqs.
They keep women down and in their place. Not letting them take a place in society. Keeping them in their second class statist for thousands of years.
Maybe we should wrap ole' Sarah Palin in a burqa and tell her to STFU. :rotfl:
Quote from: Locutus on July 14, 2010, 01:33:13 PM
Maybe we should wrap ole' Sarah Palin in a burqa and tell her to STFU. :rotfl:
And Pelosi :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Thar she blows! Man the harpoons!
:spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked: :spooked:
(Now who is it that is going to mop up all that puke around here anyway?)
Quote from: me on July 14, 2010, 02:39:07 PM
And Pelosi :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
I think Nancy in one good looking woman, especially being 70 years old. She very smart and she could cut off your head :behead: so fast. That you wouldn't know your were cut until you turned to walk away and your head fell off. :biggrin:
I would like to put you, "ME" :flap: :flap: and Nancy in a debate and I would put up $500 that she could beat you hands down of politics and how to handle the government. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on July 14, 2010, 04:43:07 PM
I think Nancy in one good looking woman, especially being 70 years old. She very smart and she could cut off your head :behead: so fast. That you wouldn't know your were cut until you turned to walk away and your head fell off. :biggrin:
I would like to put you, "ME" :flap: :flap: and Nancy in a debate and I would put up $500 that she could beat you hands down of politics and how to handle the government. :yes: :biggrin:
Ya, that botox sure does wonders for her. If she shoots anymore of it into her face she probably won't be able to talk 'cause her mouth won't move.
Quote from: The Troll on July 14, 2010, 08:56:52 AM
What about the guy dressed in a Burqa got on a bus in Isreral one morning loaded with school children and killed practially eveybody on it.
I don't suppose you have a source for that? I've looked. No dice.
QuoteThere many other cases of women dressed in Burqas blowing themselves up and killing other people.
There were the two suicide bombers in Pakistan last April, but they were men.
C'mon, Troll, don't go talkin' smack unless you can back it up. There are plenty of well-documented atrocities out there to cite. No need to blow smoke.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on July 14, 2010, 09:30:11 AM
Well yeah, I think all women, regardless of faith, who live a life of subservience should shake off the shackles be they literal or figurative. That would include everyone from burka wearing women to those living the Christian submissive BS.
I agree, Sandy, but I also believe very firmly that it is their right to choose to wear those shackles. I would question their intelligence, but it is still their right.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 14, 2010, 07:41:00 PM
I agree, Sandy, but I also believe very firmly that it is their right to choose to wear those shackles. I would question their intelligence, but it is still their right.
I agree as long as it's an option, they are fully informed AND are able to make the choice from the alternatives. :yes:
I have to admit that although I respect their right to choose this lifestyle I can only respect the right, not the choice.
Quote from: me on July 14, 2010, 06:58:06 PM
Ya, that botox sure does wonders for her. If she shoots anymore of it into her face she probably won't be able to talk 'cause her mouth won't move.
Well you don't use Botox. Because you sure one big loud mouth broad. That is just like one large BADY ROBIN. Alway have it's mouth open and full of shit. Why don't you gargle some Alum and make your face more piched. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 14, 2010, 07:38:51 PM
I don't suppose you have a source for that? I've looked. No dice.
There were the two suicide bombers in Pakistan last April, but they were men.
C'mon, Troll, don't go talkin' smack unless you can back it up. There are plenty of well-documented atrocities out there to cite. No need to blow smoke.
Well, Lolly strikes out again. Now I will admit I do not have the education you have. Or the titles you carry, but sweetheart, no matter how much you dislike me, you don't want to under estimate the Troll to much. You might be able to operate a computer better than me and your spelling and your use of English.
But I can pipe a factory, a home. Build a house. Remodel a house and what that includes. One hell of of a lot of thing you precious butt can't do. I also took good care of my wife for 47 years where she didn't have to work. She work at the library because she got bored at the house, because I bought her everything she wanted and she liked to read and liked books.
You say, you really researched women suicide bomber wearing Burqas. Either your lying or you trying to bull shit me. :flap: :flap: :wall:
Just goggle in " female suicide bomber in israel wearing burqas" you will find many items on it.
http//www.freerepublic.com/focus/focus/f-news/2546181/post-143k
I think you will find I don't lie. Are you happy now, Lolly. :biggrin:
Your link didn't work, but I was able to amend it and get to the site you referenced. It wasn't a news story. It was a blog post. However, I was able to find the real news story the blog was discussing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7533884/Moscow-metro-blasts-female-suicide-bombers-kill-35.html
It was about a couple of suicide bombers in Moscow. "Early indications" were that the bombers were from Chechnya. And there is no mention of them wearing burqas. That rumor only appears in the blog.
Googling the topic gave a few more suggestions, but upon reading the stories, I discovered they were always about men.
I neither like, nor dislike you, Troll. I don't know you. But I'm no more likely to let you get by with half-truths and innuendo than I am to excuse the same thing when me or Henry tries it.
Well I don't intend to lie or tell mistruths. But it still remains in my mind that several years a go when the Palestinians and the the Israel's had a cease fire and they opened their borders a woman dress in a burqa. One morning got on a bus loaded with school children and blew the hell out of the bus. I told my wife the yellow son of bitches are now using women to do the cowardly work.
Wither there are women or men or criminals who hiding from the police wearing them in public. I think it's wrong and dangerous.
And nuns in habits? Or fake nuns in habits? Or anyone in very loose-fitting clothes?
Gotta deal with all of them, guy.
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 15, 2010, 10:02:38 AM
And nuns in habits? Or fake nuns in habits? Or anyone in very loose-fitting clothes?
Gotta deal with all of them, guy.
Well, Mr. Wolf, I don't care about loose closes. People wearing loose pants, where you can see the butt crack. Or in fact hoods.
But I want to see their face. See their eyes. See their facial expressions. Their face and eyes is like a book on them and their thoughts. Am I right, on wanting to see the face. If you were a bank teller of a business man checking some one out. Wouldn't you like that little advanatge. When cops are talking to you, they sure don't like you wearing sun glasses and they want their's on especially the mirrored ones.
One of the best ways of getting sucker punched is not watching the person eyes that hit you. You should know that, from working around men all of your life. :yes: :wink:
This one millwright always talking how tough he was and never lost a fight. I was talking to his best friend about it. His friend, yes, he never lost a fight I seen him in. He always suckers punch them first.
Well, one day we got in it. He got in my face and said it that the way you feel go to hell and he turn away. I pick up a pipe wrench and held it in front of me. He spun around with his fist doubled up and started to swing, he saw the pipe wrench and stopped. I told him he wasn't going to sucker punch me, if he didn't want to eat this pipe wrench. He never bothered me again.
Man, to be safer you got to see the face, eyes and hands. How can I be wrong?
The French are afraid of a bunch of oppressed women! :rotfl:
No wonder they run from conflict! :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on July 15, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Well, Mr. Wolf, I don't care about loose closes. People wearing loose pants, where you can see the butt crack. Or in fact hoods.
But I want to see their face. See their eyes. See their facial expressions. Their face and eyes is like a book on them and their thoughts. Am I right, on wanting to see the face. If you were a bank teller of a business man checking some one out. Wouldn't you like that little advanatge. When cops are talking to you, they sure don't like you wearing sun glasses and they want their's on especially the mirrored ones.
One of the best ways of getting sucker punched is not watching the person eyes that hit you. You should know that, from working around men all of your life. :yes: :wink:
This one millwright always talking how tough he was and never lost a fight. I was talking to his best friend about it. His friend, yes, he never lost a fight I seen him in. He always suckers punch them first.
Well, one day we got in it. He got in my face and said it that the way you feel go to hell and he turn away. I pick up a pipe wrench and held it in front of me. He spun around with his fist doubled up and started to swing, he saw the pipe wrench and stopped. I told him he wasn't going to sucker punch me, if he didn't want to eat this pipe wrench. He never bothered me again.
Man, to be safer you got to see the face, eyes and hands. How can I be wrong?
Burqas don't hide eyes. Habits don't hide eyes. But they sure as heck can hide weapons.
Eyes are not the point here. Concealed weapons are. If you outlaw one, you have to outlaw the other.
Relax Wolfie, they're just profiling! :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 15, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
The French are afraid of a bunch of oppressed women! :rotfl:
Don't laugh, PH. There are a certain number of people who are very much afraid of
this formerly oppressed woman. Betcha Sandy has a list too.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 15, 2010, 07:30:10 PM
Don't laugh, PH. There are a certain number of people who are very much afraid of this formerly oppressed woman. Betcha Sandy has a list too.
I bet they are French too! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on July 15, 2010, 07:26:40 PM
Relax Wolfie, they're just profiling! :yes:
I know.
Sometimes I can't help myself.
:smitten:
Good on ya, Lolly.
:biggrin:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 15, 2010, 07:38:15 PM
Not anymore.
Careful! You'll get yourself lumped into the bag of tricks with the NBPP, by the Central Scrutinizer! :spooked:
Quote from: The Troll on July 15, 2010, 08:41:16 AM
But it still remains in my mind that several years a go when the Palestinians and the the Israel's had a cease fire and they opened their borders a woman dress in a burqa.
I found two possibilities:
This one in 1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre
and this one in 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_HaNavi_bus_bombing
Neither involved anyone in a burqa, but the Shmuel HaNavi bomber disguised himself as a Haredi Jew, so maybe that's what you were thinking of.
Still, no burqas. I understand the point you were making, but muddying up the truth makes it possible for people to say everything you post is false. I'm not being snotty. I'm saying "be more careful."
Quote from: Palehorse on July 15, 2010, 07:47:18 PM
...by the Central Scrutinizer! :spooked:
It isn't former Handicapper General Diana Moon Glampers, is it?
Quote from: followsthewolf on July 15, 2010, 07:37:31 PM
I know.
Sometimes I can't help myself.
Please don't help yourself...or do help yourself...er...ummm...I think you know what I mean.
I understand. :yes:
Quote from: LOsborne on July 15, 2010, 07:51:14 PM
It isn't former Handicapper General Diana Moon Glampers, is it?
The identity of the CS is not known, but its agents are everywhere on the internet. Dina MoeHumm was a name I heard associated with the position, but I have never been able to independently confirm that. . .
Quote from: LOsborne on July 15, 2010, 07:50:20 PM
I found two possibilities:
This one in 1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre
and this one in 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_HaNavi_bus_bombing
Neither involved anyone in a burqa, but the Shmuel HaNavi bomber disguised himself as a Haredi Jew, so maybe that's what you were thinking of.
Still, no burqas. I understand the point you were making, but muddying up the truth makes it possible for people to say everything you post is false. I'm not being snotty. I'm saying "be more careful."
Maybe I wrong, it seemed to be a clear memory. Oh well, its water over the damn. But you don't the hatered I feel for these cowardly bastard bombing Innocent people. Kill them all and let God choose the good ones.
But to change the subject, my daughter in law is working for the second largest retailer under Walmart. Well, they hired a young 18 year old girl and the store manager (female) was telling how much her and her boy friend was having and ask her if would like a threesome. This is the first job this girl has had. She told here district manager that she was sexual hurassed and he told her, that her job was safe. Well, he didn't do anything. She thinking of filing a complaint with human resources. What should she do.
Quote from: The Troll on July 15, 2010, 09:52:07 PM
What should she do.
Oh geez, don't get me started. First of all, she needs to decline the invitation, publicly if possible. That should pretty much do it. Right now you've got a "she said/she said" situation, and pursuing it will only make a bunch of drama where it isn't needed. If the girl is old enough to work, she is old enough to say "leave me alone." On the off-chance the invitations continue, she can ask for a note to be dated and put in her employee jacket.
Your friend hasn't been harassed. She was "invited," much as if the woman had said, "my boyfriend and I are going for a beer after work. ya wanna come?' and the girl said, "no, I don't drink." If the supervisor now begins to make fun of your friend for not drinking, to pressure her (particularly if she implies it's a condition of employment) to try just one beer -- then it's harassment.
Now, before the girl starts counting her settlement, let me caution you; the only thing the company is obligated to do is make the harassment stop. They are not obligated to fire the supervisor, or to pay anybody any money. Just make it stop.
Okay?
I get really tired of these kind of "he offended me" complaints. I tell the complainants exactly what I suggested you say to the girl -- tell him to quit it.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 16, 2010, 08:05:03 AM
Oh geez, don't get me started. First of all, she needs to decline the invitation, publicly if possible. That should pretty much do it. Right now you've got a "she said/she said" situation, and pursuing it will only make a bunch of drama where it isn't needed. If the girl is old enough to work, she is old enough to say "leave me alone." On the off-chance the invitations continue, she can ask for a note to be dated and put in her employee jacket.
Your friend hasn't been harassed. She was "invited," much as if the woman had said, "my boyfriend and I are going for a beer after work. ya wanna come?' and the girl said, "no, I don't drink." If the supervisor now begins to make fun of your friend for not drinking, to pressure her (particularly if she implies it's a condition of employment) to try just one beer -- then it's harassment.
Now, before the girl starts counting her settlement, let me caution you; the only thing the company is obligated to do is make the harassment stop. They are not obligated to fire the supervisor, or to pay anybody any money. Just make it stop.
Okay?
I get really tired of these kind of "he offended me" complaints. I tell the complainants exactly what I suggested you say to the girl -- tell him to quit it.
Thanks Lolly. That is what I wanted to say but figured I'd catch hell from 50 different directions.
The message was sent to her, now we will see what happens. Told her she was a big girl now and she had to grow up. She was in big girl world now.
Thanks, Lolly.
Quote from: The Troll on July 16, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
The message was sent to her, now we will see what happens. Told her she was a big girl now and she had to grow up. She was in big girl world now.
Thanks, Lolly.
:hug:
Growing up is over-rated and it stinks, but we've all had to do it. I think in this case and similar ones, Lolly is exactly right.
I'm hijacking the thread, but I recall years ago, in another life, I was told to reprimand an employee for kissing his significant other goodbye in front of the business. I had observed it and we're not talking about heated passsion here. We're talking a quick peck, I love you, have a great day kinda thing. The other employees were offended because his significant other was a he. So, rather than reprimand the employee, I added a policy to the employee handbook. No PDA in the business or parking lot. When I passed the policy around to the employees, they all grumbled. What? So, the rules should be different? Nope.
Glad to hear your input, Sandy. Ya know, when I first started in HR (sometime before the Punic Wars) I discovered a certain percentage of employees think my function is to listen to them tattle. I started telling them, "I'm not your mother." I said it so often, one of my staff worked it in needlepoint for me a few Christmases ago. I hangs in my office -- along with my "Just another old hippie now working for the establishment," and my "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons. For you are crunchy. And good with ketchup!" plaques.
Now, can someone tell me how to handle the Gen-Yer's who think they need an "attaboy" and a raise any time they do their jobs correctly?