Thread: French Parliament approves ban on Islamic veils

So how about the offspring of non British who were born in the UK and have British passports?
Would you treat them differently to a 10th generation white bloke?

Originally Posted by mr Fred

So how about the offspring of non British who were born in the UK and have British passports?
Would you treat them differently to a 10th generation white bloke?

Born in the UK makes him British, regardless of the birthplace of his parents.

You really are obsessed with skin colour, which is a shame.

Here's a simple question for the BNP apologists.

If they are not a racist organisation, then why do they not wish to allow non-whites into their organisation/party?

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Here's a simple question for the BNP apologists.

If they are not a racist organisation, then why do they not wish to allow non-whites into their organisation/party?

I wonder how long this will sit here for before a reply.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Here's a simple question for the BNP apologists.

If they are not a racist organisation, then why do they not wish to allow non-whites into their organisation/party?

If you are referring to me, then I am not an apologist for the BNP, I am a member.

I was against this policy, I always advocate for the inclusion of all British citizens regardless of colour.

Being a member of the BNP is just the same as being a member of any other political party, we won’t all agree on all policies.

I basis my political believes on two things:-

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

The character of a country is the product of its people and if you change the people you then change the character of the country.

^

So you don't wish to answer the question then? I'll reiterate: If the BNP are not a racist organisation/party, then why do they not wish to allow non-white members.

^
I do not know, when I became a member that rule had changed, so I really don't care.

Maybe you can shed light on the reason

^^
Let me reiterate my reasons for joining the BNP:-

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

The character of a country is the product of its people and if you change the people you then change the character of the country.

Originally Posted by jojo333

Maybe you can shed light on the reason

Because they are a racist organisation, that's why. It's not even open to interpretation and it certainly ain't rocket science.

Deliberate exclusion of any person or people based on race is racist. That is FACT.

So why did you ask me if you already knew the answer?

Originally Posted by jojo333

So why did you ask me if you already knew the answer?

I thought that it would have been quite obvious that I was attempting to see if any BNP apologist/member/whatever would admit that the BNP are a racist organisation/party/whatever.

I thought that my intention was blatantly obvious.

Still no joy yet though.

You liberals need to really try another tactic,I have heard all your drivel before and if anything it reinforces my believes.

I am not a racist, I am a member of a British Political Party.

Originally Posted by jojo333

You liberals need to really try another tactic,I have heard all your drivel before and if anything it reinforces my believes.

I am not a racist, I am a member of a British Political Party.

I didn't ask if you where a racist did I?

The question again:

How can the BNP not be a racist organisation when they do not wish to allow non-whites into their party.

Why do I feel as though I am not going to get a simple answer to a simple question.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Originally Posted by jojo333

You liberals need to really try another tactic,I have heard all your drivel before and if anything it reinforces my believes.

I am not a racist, I am a member of a British Political Party.

I didn't ask if you where a racist did I?

The question again:

How can the BNP not be a racist organisation when they do not wish to allow non-whites into their party.

Why do I feel as though I am not going to get a simple answer to a simple question.

Okay take your pick:-

A) The BNP is not a racist organisation.

B) The BNP is a racist organisation, because in the past it did not seek non-white members

C) I do not know and frankly I do not care about policies in the past.

D) None of the Above

because in the past it did not seek non-white members

How unexpected. The old "Well, they have changed their policies and that is now in the past" card.

Of course the fact that they had to change their policies because it was deemed illegal by a court has nothing to do with it, does it? Nothing at all.

In fact, Nick Griffin was likely to change it anyway because he is such a good chap. It was pure coincidence that it happened at the same time as a court finding wasn't it. Nothing but coincidence.

What a pathetically weak argument and you yourself must surely see that for yourself.

I take the good with the bad, like all political parties and I stand by my reasons, namely

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

The character of a country is the product of its people and if you change the people you then change the character of the country.

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

What the fuck does that mean anyway?

What exactly is it that you want preserved? (Cue another round of non-answers)

^
Ah the profanity, well never mind, it’s the weekend here for me in Abu Dhabi, so of to the bar with a few of my colleagues, Muslim, Hindi, Roman Catholic and others of unknown persuasion, cheers

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

What the fuck does that mean anyway?

What exactly is it that you want preserved? (Cue another round of non-answers)

It means he can't answer the questions.

So where does jojo live?

Originally Posted by mr Fred

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Every nation has the right to preserve their identity and national existence.

What the fuck does that mean anyway?

What exactly is it that you want preserved? (Cue another round of non-answers)

It means he can't answer the questions.

Yeppers.

^^
Based in Thailand for the last 23 years, currently on assigment in Abu Dhabi, back in LOS in two weeks time.

You are still here.

Perhaps you can answer the question then:

What is it about Britain's identity and national existence that you would like preserved?

Originally Posted by jojo333

^^
Based in Thailand for the last 23 years, currently on assigment in Abu Dhabi, back in LOS in two weeks time.

How would you feel if some bastard told you to sod off home from a Muslim country because they didn't want you there ruining their, what was it now? identity and national existence.

So you hang around with Muslims and other foreigners in their countries for cash but don't want them in yours.
Well, gosh.

Originally Posted by crazy dog

Originally Posted by mr Fred

French government are fucking idiots for banning it.

Are they Idiots in Turkey for banning this form of bondage as well?

I can't believe this thread has gotten over 100 replies without anybody drawing a distinction between the total public ban on niqab in the French law, and the mere restriction on its use in official buildings in some Muslim-majority countries.

so here's a word to the ill-informed. The ban in France isn't anything like the restriction on niqab, headscarf, etc in Muslim majority Turkey, Tunisia, etc. The restriction there is only for official buildings. In France, the plan is to ban it EVERYWHERE outside the house - on the street, on the metro, everywhere.

it's for the woman, not the state, to decide if it's a 'right thing', or 'wrong thing', to wear a particular type of clothing, except when there's an obvious security reason for restricting it - which is why face-covered women must uncover when they go into Turkish or Tunisian banks.

if she does decide if it's a 'wrong thing', then she'll stop wearing that style of clothing and wear something else. Plenty of women do this, in those places where they actually do have a choice of what they wear. They wear the veil for a while, to try it. They might even like it for a while. But later, they change their mind and they stop wearing it. Why should the state interfere with these decisions?

it's especially depressing that they're trying to make out they're doing it for the cause of women's rights, when what they're actually doing is removing women's right to choose to wear whatever they want.

sure, there's probably a very few women that not have the freedom of choice in wearing it and are pressurised into doing it. But there's very few and if somebody is being forced to wear a niqab than it's a symptom of a malicious family situation that won't be helped in any way by a ban on niqab.

France has just got this badly wrong, and a law like this would be a total disgrace to any other liberal democracy in the world too.