• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils..[W:48]

Infinite Chaos said:
it is not a core tenet of islam.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter if it was a core tenet or not?


I am fairly certain many muslims have stated that their holy book should not be adulterated thus someone now stating a religious basis for face covering can be judged to be proposing an altered state or version of their holy book.
Click to expand...

As you can see from the link I provided to you, these people don't see themselves as corrupting the quran or islam. In fact, quite the opposite
 
rathi said:
Most people reject Wahabbism because its oppressive to women and promotes religious intolerance. If you don't have a problem with those values, why do you reject Wahhabism so strongly?
Click to expand...

I don't live in Ticino. I don't know why they decided to vote this way. You'd have to ask them.
 
Serenity said:
And therein lies my issues with so many "political activists". All talk and no substance. I have no issues with someone being proactive to support a cause that they believe strongly in but it makes no sense to go so far as to campaign, take something to vote and then bring into law something that is purely symbolic. There are no people who wear niqab in Ticino.

Surely Ghiringhelli would be able to better serve the Community by doing something much more constructive by changing something that actually does impact the people there in a positive way if he is that way inclined.
Click to expand...

Seems this wasn't all talk and no substance though. Considering it is the talk of the town and the region. He said he would do it and he did. Looks more like he backed up that substance. No matter the outcome, while at the same time letting Muslims know where they are at, and what is customary around there.

Some would believe that is serving the community positively while looking to protect the community not just for the moment in time. But for its future as well.
 
Serenity said:
And therein lies my issues with so many "political activists". All talk and no substance. I have no issues with someone being proactive to support a cause that they believe strongly in but it makes no sense to go so far as to campaign, take something to vote and then bring into law something that is purely symbolic. There are no people who wear niqab in Ticino.

Surely Ghiringhelli would be able to better serve the Community by doing something much more constructive by changing something that actually does impact the people there in a positive way if he is that way inclined.
Click to expand...

I'll worry about that when a western woman can wear her normal clothes and attend a Methodist service in Riyadh.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I'll worry about that when a western woman can wear her normal clothes and attend a Methodist service in Riyadh.:peace
Click to expand...

So the proper way for a government to respond to poor behavior on the part of other nations is to mimic it?
 
MMC said:
Seems this wasn't all talk and no substance though. Considering it is the talk of the town and the region. He said he would do it and he did. Looks more like he backed up that substance. No matter the outcome, while at the same time letting Muslims know where they are at, and what is customary around there.

Some would believe that is serving the community positively while looking to protect the community not just for the moment in time. But for its future as well.
Click to expand...

If the talk of the town and the region is something that isn't a problem but the new law makes them sleep better at night, good for them for being proactive.

Personally i would prefer to put my time an energy into focussing on something that was actually a current problem. But that's just me.
 
Masks in public are not cool. It's a security risk, as a criminal (presuming they remove the mask during the crime) cannot be noticed going to or from the scene of a crime.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's called reciprocity, a well established diplomatic principle.
Click to expand...

But your idea concerns punishing a states own citizens over relations that concern the geographic location of a religious monument. As an idea it's rather moronic and as a method of diplomacy pretty ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Serenity said:
If the talk of the town and the region is something that isn't a problem but the new law makes them sleep better at night, good for them for being proactive.

Personally i would prefer to put my time an energy into focussing on something that was actually a current problem. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they looked at the history.....seeing how starting out as a minority, then increasing in numbers and becoming the majority. That then they decide to demand changes and when they don't come. That then the protests start, with it comes an Opposition. Then eventually some Rebels and a call to change the government and no negotiations with those in power.

Myself I would think that whatever lets them sleep better at night. Knowing they could protect their way of live and live peacefully. Would be the Right thing to do.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's called reciprocity, a well established diplomatic principle.
Click to expand...

The well established diplomatic principle requires taking action against governments, not harassing tourists and immigrants. Its especially moronic given that Saudi Arabia represents a tiny fraction of Muslims worldwide.
 
MMC said:
Perhaps they looked at the history.....seeing how starting out as a minority, then increasing in numbers and becoming the majority. That then they decide to demand changes and when they don't come. That then the protests start, with it comes an Opposition. Then eventually some Rebels and a call to change the government and no negotiations with those in power.

Myself I would think that whatever lets them sleep better at night. Knowing they could protect their way of live and live peacefully. Would be the Right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Except that has never ever happened in history. In reality, religious minorities get horribly abused using made up justifications like the one you invented.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
But your idea concerns punishing a states own citizens over relations that concern the geographic location of a religious monument. As an idea it's rather moronic and as a method of diplomacy pretty ineffective.
Click to expand...

Reciprocity is how a state protects its own citizens.
 
rathi said:
The well established diplomatic principle requires taking action against governments, not harassing tourists and immigrants. Its especially moronic given that Saudi Arabia represents a tiny fraction of Muslims worldwide.
Click to expand...

False. Reciprocity applies to individuals. It is most readily seen in visa requirements.
 
rathi said:
The well established diplomatic principle requires taking action against governments, not harassing tourists and immigrants. Its especially moronic given that Saudi Arabia represents a tiny fraction of Muslims worldwide.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Reciprocity (international relations) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(international_relations)‎
In international relations and treaties, the principle of reciprocity states that favours, benefits, or penalties that are granted by one state to the citizens or legal ...
 
Jack Hays said:
Reciprocity is how a state protects its own citizens.
Click to expand...

a non-reply is how one projects the appearance of saying something meaningful and relevant, while not actually doing so
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
a non-reply is how one projects the appearance of saying something meaningful and relevant, while not actually doing so
Click to expand...

Then the point was apparently too sophisticated for you. A state does not act against another state's citizens to harass them, but rather to uphold the rights of its own citizens abroad.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Then the point was apparently too sophisticated for you.
Click to expand...

or you didn't have one ...


A state does not act against another state's citizens to harass them, but rather to uphold the rights of its own citizens abroad.:peace
Click to expand...

how would it be upholding the rights of citizens abroad when it's limiting the rights of it's own citizens due to something as irrelevant as the spiritual home of their religion? And how would such targeting of random people be an effective means for directing or promoting policy in SA when they likely have no concrete ties or influence in the region?

It's like suggesting one can shape policy in Israel by targeting Christians with repressive policy in Norway
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
or you didn't have one ...




how would it be upholding the rights of citizens abroad when it's limiting the rights of it's own citizens due to something as irrelevant as the spiritual home of their religion? And how would such targeting of random people be an effective means for directing or promoting policy in SA when they likely have no concrete ties or influence in the region?

It's like suggesting one can shape policy in Israel by targeting Christians with repressive policy in Norway
Click to expand...

It is an age old practice, well tested and soundly rooted in international law. A state may impose reciprocal restrictions on another state's citizens to match those imposed on its own citizens in the other state. :peace
 
Jack Hays said:
It is an age old practice, well tested and soundly rooted in international law. A state may impose reciprocal restrictions ***on another state's citizens*** to match those imposed on its own citizens in the other state. :peace
Click to expand...

Muslim isn't a nationality, which is the issue I pointed out with your theory from the beginning
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Muslim isn't a nationality, which is the issue I pointed out with your theory from the beginning
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It's the behavior of states that matters. Muslim states impose restrictions; therefore reciprocal restrictions can be imposed on citizens of Muslim states.:peace
 
rathi said:
Except that has never ever happened in history. In reality, religious minorities get horribly abused using made up justifications like the one you invented.
Click to expand...

Well going back in history you would be Right.....as they didn't protest then.

Its not a made up justification for people that want to protect their culture and way of life. Again which history as shown, religious or otherwise.
 
Jack Hays said:
Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

You just wrote " A state may impose reciprocal restrictions on another state's citizens"

It's the behavior of states that matters.
Click to expand...

Again, how is it at all effective or meaningful targeting people that may have n connection to the state beyond it being seen as the spiritual home of their religion? The House of Saud isn't exactly equivalent to the papacy in islam


Muslim states impose restrictions; therefore reciprocal restrictions can be imposed on citizens of **Muslim states**.:peace
Click to expand...

the state would be targeting it's own citizens ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
You just wrote " A state may impose reciprocal restrictions on another state's citizens"



Again, how is it at all effective or meaningful targeting people that may have n connection to the state beyond it being seen as the spiritual home of their religion? The House of Saud isn't exactly equivalent to the papacy in islam




the state would be targeting it's own citizens ...
Click to expand...

Why in the world do you keep coming back to the House of Saud? My focus for reciprocity is all Muslim states that impose restrictions. Your posts are incoherent.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Why in the world do you keep coming back to the House of Saud?
Click to expand...

This is the first time I mentioned them. But you cited Saudi Arabia in your original post

My focus for reciprocity is all Muslim states that impose restrictions.
Click to expand...

Then the issues with your strategy would only become even more apparent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom