Scot Dutchy wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Except not. You can criticize the wearing of head veils all you want without being islamophobic. It is when you support a law that bans head veils for no other reason than I hate islam than it becomes not only misogynistic but islamophobic.

If you read my earlier post, you'll notice that I don't support a general ban at all.

Nice try Will. Read the proposed law will you. It is for ALL face coverings.

With your government intensely focusing on the burqa and islamic women during the discussions for whether the ban should be implemented. Nice try Scot, but your goalpost shift is irrational.

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation.

If you cannot wear the same clothes you can wear on the streets into any of those places than those places are not truly public and you have a massive issue on your hand. Private schools, hospitals, and transportation may be able to say something but public places should not have said authority.

If it is an issue of identification needed the law should allow for a brief removal of the veil/face covering to ascertain identification and then the veil should be allowed back on.

Again there has been no justifiable reason presented as to why the veil has to be removed at all times in those places.

Just a bunch of fearmongering, intolerance, bigotry, and presumptions that women are incapable of making their own choices.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Peter

I am afraid that certain members here seem to think that all muslims are pink and furry.

No, people here see Muslims as human beings. That includes all the good and bad that go along with being a human being and forming a society of human beings.

There are some on this forum however that see them as 'Arab-fuckheads' who shouldn't be allowed into their country.

ED209 wrote:

Nicko wrote:... I largely agree with the way this law has been enacted (wear the veil if you like, just don't expect to have any interaction with a business or government department without revealing your identity). But please don't pretend that it will stop abusive sexist degenerates who formerly used force and threats to control the women in their lives from currently using force and threats to control the women in their lives.. ..

I know women who suffer verbal and even physical abuse from strangers in the street because they don't wear niqab. It would seem fair to assume that such abuse goes on much more commonly behind closed doors, too.

These restrictions will stop these instances of abuse by going some way towards normalising 'not wearing niqab', by providing good reasons to refuse to wear it beyond being an immodest harami. What well-meaning SJWs don't appreciate is that we have places where such normalisation is now necessary - but they don't have any in france, and now they won't have any in NL either.

These laws work, and I've yet to see a compelling argument against the NL law whereby people can still parade around as billboards for devout segregation and misogyny in the street if they insist, but they cannot walk into a school or metro station without being identifiable to those around them.

Citations please.

1) That this law would do what you say it will and

2) That these laws work.

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Except not. You can criticize the wearing of head veils all you want without being islamophobic. It is when you support a law that bans head veils for no other reason than I hate islam than it becomes not only misogynistic but islamophobic.

If you read my earlier post, you'll notice that I don't support a general ban at all.

Nice try Will. Read the proposed law will you. It is for ALL face coverings.

With your government intensely focusing on the burqa and islamic women during the discussions for whether the ban should be implemented. Nice try Scot, but your goalpost shift is irrational.

Evidence?

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation.

If you cannot wear the same clothes you can wear on the streets into any of those places than those places are not truly public and you have a massive issue on your hand. Private schools, hospitals, and transportation may be able to say something but public places should not have said authority.

Ballox will and you know it. You go into these places for services. What is the issue?

If it is an issue of identification needed the law should allow for a brief removal of the veil/face covering to ascertain identification and then the veil should be allowed back on.

Again there has been no justifiable reason presented as to why the veil has to be removed at all times in those places.

Just a bunch of fearmongering, intolerance, bigotry, and presumptions that women are incapable of making their own choices.

No justifiable reason to be wearing it. It is not a religious matter but a cultural one and ballox to that.
What is your evidence for the last sentence? Assertions only?

Acetone wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Peter

I am afraid that certain members here seem to think that all muslims are pink and furry.

No, people here see Muslims as human beings. That includes all the good and bad that go along with being a human being and forming a society of human beings.

There are some on this forum however that see them as 'Arab-fuckheads' who shouldn't be allowed into their country.

Who and where?

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

Nicko wrote:... I largely agree with the way this law has been enacted (wear the veil if you like, just don't expect to have any interaction with a business or government department without revealing your identity). But please don't pretend that it will stop abusive sexist degenerates who formerly used force and threats to control the women in their lives from currently using force and threats to control the women in their lives.. ..

I know women who suffer verbal and even physical abuse from strangers in the street because they don't wear niqab. It would seem fair to assume that such abuse goes on much more commonly behind closed doors, too.

These restrictions will stop these instances of abuse by going some way towards normalising 'not wearing niqab', by providing good reasons to refuse to wear it beyond being an immodest harami. What well-meaning SJWs don't appreciate is that we have places where such normalisation is now necessary - but they don't have any in france, and now they won't have any in NL either.

These laws work, and I've yet to see a compelling argument against the NL law whereby people can still parade around as billboards for devout segregation and misogyny in the street if they insist, but they cannot walk into a school or metro station without being identifiable to those around them.

Citations please.

1) That this law would do what you say it will and

2) That these laws work.

Well lets see will we?

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

Nicko wrote:... I largely agree with the way this law has been enacted (wear the veil if you like, just don't expect to have any interaction with a business or government department without revealing your identity). But please don't pretend that it will stop abusive sexist degenerates who formerly used force and threats to control the women in their lives from currently using force and threats to control the women in their lives.. ..

I know women who suffer verbal and even physical abuse from strangers in the street because they don't wear niqab. It would seem fair to assume that such abuse goes on much more commonly behind closed doors, too.

These restrictions will stop these instances of abuse by going some way towards normalising 'not wearing niqab', by providing good reasons to refuse to wear it beyond being an immodest harami. What well-meaning SJWs don't appreciate is that we have places where such normalisation is now necessary - but they don't have any in france, and now they won't have any in NL either.

These laws work, and I've yet to see a compelling argument against the NL law whereby people can still parade around as billboards for devout segregation and misogyny in the street if they insist, but they cannot walk into a school or metro station without being identifiable to those around them.

Citations please.

1) That this law would do what you say it will and

2) That these laws work.

Well lets see will we?

I think will believes that in places where it is prohibited or inconvenient to wear niqab such that the expectation on women to wear it is removed or at least reduced, then the fuckwits simply start haranguing all women, because none of them are wearing it

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

On your second question, medical exemptions apply but pastiness might not qualify. Still, you have roofs on your public buildings so sufficient shade should be available when you are indoors or underground or whatever.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

Oh come on Will. Do we have to state the obvious?

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

Reaching the bottom of the barrel Will?

ED209 wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

On your second question, medical exemptions apply but pastiness might not qualify. Still, you have roofs on your public buildings so sufficient shade should be available when you are indoors or underground or whatever.

And the reasoning behind the ban in public buildings is waffle at best. Again you can have security be authorized to check identification and thus the woman and/or person is allowed to place their head covering back on.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

Oh come on Will. Do we have to state the obvious?

Funny thing about statements like this. It usually is a dodge to a question.

Care to actually answer the question? If I am asking it is not obvious. And if you think it is obvious you should easily be able to answer it.

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

On your second question, medical exemptions apply but pastiness might not qualify. Still, you have roofs on your public buildings so sufficient shade should be available when you are indoors or underground or whatever.

And the reasoning behind the ban in public buildings is waffle at best. Again you can have security be authorized to check identification and thus the woman and/or person is allowed to place their head covering back on.

Facial contact is required and have a guess for Will. These include social service offices.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

Reaching the bottom of the barrel Will?

Statements like these are also dodging the question.

If we allow face veils for reasons such as the above than we should allow face veils for other reasons since you cannot just start listing exceptions straight out of your asshole.

Again, neither your nor Ed have come forward to provide objective evidence why these bans need to be enacted.

Peter Brown wrote:The Burka is a message to you, it says I hate you, I want you dead I want Islam and Allah to dominate everything humans do, and we must follow every act Muhammad did. If you don't understand this simple message then you are as stupid as they are.

Thanks for the above. I now know not to bother with the rest of your comments.

I'll get more factual content from Zionism.