• 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!

French pool bans 'burkini' swim

Exactly. But god forbid should Sarkozy realize the EU's immigration system, if not the EU in its entirety, is flawed.

There aint no EU immigration system. It is still the job of the member nations to set their own immigration laws and systems.
 
There aint no EU immigration system. It is still the job of the member nations to set their own immigration laws and systems.

Thats my point. It only takes one EU country to bring in a horde of Muslims, and then they go about in EU countries spreading like wildfire (inter EU immigration standards are set by the EU and those standards are not tough enough).
 
That's where I stop caring. If someone is not infringing upon the rights of others, I don't care what they do. Government is not a source of morals, nor should it ever be viewed as such. And the government has no place in regulating religions and their populations if those individuals are not infringing upon the rights of other people.

The government sets a moral standard in society, to keep it civilized, whether you care, or agree or not. Thats why drugs are outlawed, polygamy, incest, etc. Whether you care of not is irrelevant. These measures are simply being taken to stop the growth of a radical interpretation of Islam and the preservation of a native culture.

Just a note, we have specific laws about marrying your cousin,

Yet, you are okay with this? It infringes on your rights, does it?


Also, one last thing. Governments do not have rights, only individuals have rights.

Its the governments right from a "they are obliged to do such things" stand point.
 
I would had it not been so early adopted by the United States as being a condition of joining the Union. I don't personally really care about polygamists so long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others.

there are still many laws forbiding things that don't really infringe upon the rights of other people, think about all the things that are "against the public order"

I think the state has a role to preserve the values and the moral of its society. That may evolve, like now we accept divorce much more easily than before, we accept homosexuality, we have laws allowing gays to adopt kids, laws allowing people to get an abortion, laws allowing people to be euthanasied, laws allowing people to change sex etc...it depends on the society. And it looks like most European societies are not ready to accept the Burqa and the Burqini. If you could read the reactions in the newspapers, 90% of the people applaud the Italian mayor.
 
Last edited:
there are still many laws forbiding things that don't really infringe upon the rights of other people, think about all the things that are "against the public order"

I think the state has a role to preserve the values and the moral of its society

You'll notice that I argue against a wide variety of those laws.
 
You'll notice that I argue against a wide variety of those laws.

Yes, I've noticed that it was probably our only big disagreement!
 
The government sets a moral standard in society, to keep it civilized, whether you care, or agree or not. Thats why drugs are outlawed, polygamy, incest, etc. Whether you care of not is irrelevant. These measures are simply being taken to stop the growth of a radical interpretation of Islam and the preservation of a native culture.

There are many laws I don't believe are proper realm for federal government, including drugs. I also think things like prostitution should be legal as well.

Yet, you are okay with this? It infringes on your rights, does it?

Specifically for cousins, you have a fairly good biological reason to keep that illegal.

Its the governments right from a "they are obliged to do such things" stand point.

Government has no rights, it only has duty and obligation granted to it by the People of that government.
 
Thats my point. It only takes one EU country to bring in a horde of Muslims, and then they go about in EU countries spreading like wildfire (inter EU immigration standards are set by the EU and those standards are not tough enough).

So you actually want a unified EU policy on this?... does that not go against your EU hatred? :)
 
So you actually want a unified EU policy on this?... does that not go against your EU hatred? :)

Since when was any EU policy unified? It enforces it, and we must comply. And on your comment about the EU not having an immigration system; they elites recently made an agreement with Turkey that the Turks can live and work anywhere within Europe without a Visa. When did the candidate countries agree to this? Oh, never!

This is what happens when you get federal expansionism taking over sovereign. Expect a lot more Turks looting and rioting in Denmark shortly.

Turkish citizens arrive in UK without visa - Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review

Yaaayy!

EDIT: I dont want the destruction of the EU. I just want it to go back to its original intentions; a common market with some market integration (and only the very neccessary ones like removal of trade barriers etc). Its turned into a huge cultural experimental mess gone wrong. Now we are accepting members only on the bases of them being "completely culturally European" instead of asking ourselves "what can there market offer us and will it be healthy for the union?". Can you see what it has become? Its almost like candidacy and acceptance is based on racial and cultural qualities rather than economic qualities and thats just sad. If the EU nations cant make tougher immigration policies, than i believe the EU should scrap free inter-continental movement all together. Its one or the other.
 
Last edited:
There are many laws I don't believe are proper realm for federal government, including drugs. I also think things like prostitution should be legal as well.

But they are not because again, the government has a duty to provide some moral insight into society. Its evidently clear in some places our idea of moral is differing, but on a general scale of things i can see why prostitution is illegal and don't get me started on drugs ffs.



Government has no rights, it only has duty and obligation granted to it by the People of that government.

No, the constitution gives the government legal legitimate validation in state affairs, and gives the government its duties and its obligations. By constitution, ruling the state gives them the ability to introduce, take away or even modify laws and policies in accordance with the wants of the people (in many cases, or at least the wants of congress/parliament which claims to be the voice of the people).
 
Last edited:
But they are not because again, the government has a duty to provide some moral insight into society. Its evidently clear in some places our idea of moral is differing, but on a general scale of things i can see why prostitution is illegal and don't get me started on drugs ffs.

They're illegal because the government grabbed the power and won't let it go. It's not proper realm for the federal government to legislate these things, they weren't given that power.

No, the constitution gives the government legal legitimate validation in state affairs, and gives the government its duties and its obligations. By constitution, ruling the state gives them the ability to introduce, take away or even modify laws and policies in accordance with the wants of the people (in many cases, or at least the wants of congress/parliament which claims to be the voice of the people).

The Constitution grants duties and responsibilities, limited duties and responsibilities, to the government by the power of the People. The government has no innate authority, power, or sovereignty. Everything it wields it wields because the People have granted it. The Constitution is a restricting document authorizing the federal government with only a small amount of select power and appropriating that power through the many branches. Just government works within the confines of that contract. Unjust government expands and takes power not relegated to it by the People. The government cannot rightfully make laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of the People.
 
They're illegal because the government grabbed the power and won't let it go. It's not proper realm for the federal government to legislate these things, they weren't given that power.

Perhaps you are right ONLY under the bases your constitiution forbids such powers to the federal government. Otherwise, we are not talking about America here, or a federal government, this is France. And either way, your state government will do it, if not the federal government.



The Constitution grants duties and responsibilities, limited duties and responsibilities, to the government by the power of the People.

In what sense?

The government has no innate authority, power, or sovereignty. Everything it wields it wields because the People have granted it.

Rubbish. The government can do whatever it likes without giving a two sh1ts about what the people think. If they can pass it in congress and have a way of winning the next election, there sweet.


The Constitution is a restricting document authorizing the federal government with only a small amount of select power and appropriating that power through the many branches. Just government works within the confines of that contract. Unjust government expands and takes power not relegated to it by the People. The government cannot rightfully make laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of the People.

Yes it can. Hate speech, for one. State of emergency, as another example. It may not be what your constitution advocates, but does that make a difference these days? Look what Obama is doing. What has he done thats consitutional...ever? The government will and can restrict certain rights as a compromise if it ensures the safety and preservation of the native peoples from those radicals unwilling to integrate. That is the governments obligation to the state.

Again, stop dragging the US into it.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you are right ONLY under the bases your constitiution forbids such powers to the federal government. Otherwise, we are not talking about America here, or a federal government, this is France. And either way, your state government will do it, if not the federal government.

Well France can do as they like. I find what they are doing to be a sickening act against the rights and liberties of a portion of their populace brought out by xenophobia and an unwillingness to allow a certain sector of their population integrate into French society. But that's their treason and not my concern.

In what sense?

In the absolute sense. Governments have no rights and no power unto themselves. Everything they have has been granted. The People hold all power and soveriegnty and it is by that power and soveriegnty that a government may justly operate. Governments are not appointed by gods or lineage, but rather by the will and consent of the People.

Rubbish. The government can do whatever it likes without giving a two sh1ts about what the people think. If they can pass it in congress and have a way of winning the next election, there sweet.

That's great opinion if treason and tyranny are your goal.

Yes it can. Hate speech, for one. State of emergency, as another example. It may not be what your constitution advocates, but does that make a difference these days? Look what Obama is doing. What has he done thats consitutional...ever? The government will and can restrict certain rights as a compromise if it ensures the safety and preservation of the native peoples from those radicals unwilling to integrate.

Nothing says that the government cannot act improperly, but it should be noted that it is improper behavior.

Again, stop dragging the US into it.

Proper government is not limited to the United States.
 
Well France can do as they like. I find what they are doing to be a sickening act against the rights and liberties of a portion of their populace brought out by xenophobia and an unwillingness to allow a certain sector of their population integrate into French society. But that's their treason and not my concern.

I see it as a step towards allowing there integration better. Its a radical sect of Islam and to be quiet frank it will send a message across and hopefully either make them change there ways and integrate with the French society better or make them leave the country. Either way works fine for us. There is a huge integration issue here in Europe and if we don't work to stem it now it will lead to our down fall. The French approach may seem harsh, but its necessary in keeping the native culture intact and that is Sarkozy's obligation to his country.



In the absolute sense. Governments have no rights and no power unto themselves. Everything they have has been granted. The People hold all power and soveriegnty and it is by that power and soveriegnty that a government may justly operate. Governments are not appointed by gods or lineage, but rather by the will and consent of the People.

Thats what you like to think. Your right about the government technically having no power but, it has to be granted by a parliament/congress, and thats where the governments power is controlled. But do you think parliament represents the people as well as it could? Of course not. It would be physically impossible and politically impossible to put everything to popular vote, but until then i disagree with the notion they need consent of the people.

That's great opinion if treason and tyranny are your goal.

No, its political tactics and the Americans have been at it ever since Clinton. Im not talking major violation of our rights or the consitution, but small violations and restrictions here and there.

Nothing says that the government cannot act improperly, but it should be noted that it is improper behavior.

Sometimes it is neccessary for the government to inact improperly by restricting our freedoms for the betting of our society. Ask me to think of an example and ill say none because im a capitalist and i find it totally unacceptable, but i can justify it in this case.



Proper government is not limited to the United States.

How can you even compare? Everything in Europe is far more centralized, and has nothing to do with federated governments.
 
Last edited:
Not a burkini story, but thought I'd put it in here:

The Associated Press: Swiss basketball body forbids Muslim headscarf

REITNAU, Switzerland — A Muslim woman has been told by Swiss basketball authorities she can't wear a headscarf when she plays in league games.
Sura Al-Shawk, a 19-year-old Swiss citizen of Iraqi origin, is to debut in a regional women's league when the season starts next month. Her team, STV Luzern, sought permission for her to wear the scarf.

As much as I disagree with banning burkinis, I have no real problem with this one. The regulations are pretty clear and forbid religious displays. If religion is more important, she'll have to find another sport that doesn't create a conflict like this.
 
I'm of the mind that people should default to the frame of mind in these matters that they would have had before 9/11. No offense to Europe; I realize that 9/11 is not a European matter, but certainly it has had an effect on Islamic sensitivity. If this headscarf has shown to be a detriment to her abilities as a player, that is one thing. If not, it is reactionary foolishness.
 
I'm of the mind that people should default to the frame of mind in these matters that they would have had before 9/11. No offense to Europe; I realize that 9/11 is not a European matter, but certainly it has had an effect on Islamic sensitivity. If this headscarf has shown to be a detriment to her abilities as a player, that is one thing. If not, it is reactionary foolishness.

Oh come on. 9/11 wasn't just an attack on America, it was an attack on the West, and ill always remember the events of that aweful day as the worst thing to ever happen in my life time. Ive taken a minute silence every year on that day. Ill do it this year, and the next, and for as long as we remember it.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone care what a woman decides to wear when they go swimming?
 
Oh come on. 9/11 wasn't just an attack on America, it was an attack on the West, and ill always remember the events of that aweful day as the worst thing to ever happen in my life time. Ive taken a minute silence every year on that day. Ill do it this year, and the next, and for as long as we remember it.

Granted. Thanks, but still you have to admit that whether a young woman wears a headscarf while playing basketball, basketball!!, is irrelevant to the issues surrounding 9/11 and/or Islamic fundamentalism. If we really wanted to embrace progressivism in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, we would accept, joyfully, this young woman's place and identity in team sports.

Hello.
 
Does France ban other immigrants from wearing their native clothing styles? Like the Indian Salwar or Sari, and headscarves for instance? I mean, if they're wearing that ****, obviously they aren't integrated and that clothing must be banned in order to force them to conform to their new society and leave all their culture behind them.

So, do they ban native clothing from other cultures?

What about natural born citizens who wish to wear native clothing from other cultures? Is that banned too?

Nun habits? Do they ban those? Those are pretty oppressive, having to cover their hair and all and the whole black and white thing.

Or is all that "integration" crap just total bull**** after all and merely a means of discriminating against Muslim women who choose to wear traditional clothing?
 
I see it as a step towards allowing there integration better. Its a radical sect of Islam and to be quiet frank it will send a message across and hopefully either make them change there ways and integrate with the French society better or make them leave the country. Either way works fine for us. There is a huge integration issue here in Europe and if we don't work to stem it now it will lead to our down fall. The French approach may seem harsh, but its necessary in keeping the native culture intact and that is Sarkozy's obligation to his country.

So your goal for integration is to disparage and discriminate against a groups religion, and doing that is going to cause them to integrate into the society? I have a better idea, don't keep them poor! Let them work, let them participate, let them become part of the culture. Instead, especially in France, the Muslim immigrents are kept in the poorest of conditions and because of the socialist working system they aren't allowed into better jobs and aren't allowed to participate in society with everyone else. They're purposefully left out and discriminated against. I think if you want to really address issues of integration, you have to turn towards your own policies first. The French are assholes to the Muslims, hands down. They do it on purpose, they hate them. This new law is just more along those lines.

Thats what you like to think. Your right about the government technically having no power but, it has to be granted by a parliament/congress, and thats where the governments power is controlled. But do you think parliament represents the people as well as it could? Of course not. It would be physically impossible and politically impossible to put everything to popular vote, but until then i disagree with the notion they need consent of the people.

Not everything can be put to a popular vote, we have government to manage certain things. But it must be reminded about who is in charge and it's important to understand the necessities of fighting it when it which to encroach upon the rights and liberties of its people.

No, its political tactics and the Americans have been at it ever since Clinton. Im not talking major violation of our rights or the consitution, but small violations and restrictions here and there.

That's a horribly fascist statement.

Sometimes it is neccessary for the government to inact improperly by restricting our freedoms for the betting of our society. Ask me to think of an example and ill say none because im a capitalist and i find it totally unacceptable, but i can justify it in this case.

I honestly cannot understand your logic. You're authorizing improper government action against the rights and liberties of the People. It's terrible police state, big brother style fascism. You can't see that? If you're not free, you're a slave and your arguing that it's ok for the government to enslave certain people. That's the end all be all of your argument.

How can you even compare? Everything in Europe is far more centralized, and has nothing to do with federated governments.

Proper government is not limited to the United States. There are differences between Europe and America, but that doesn't mean that proper government has no place in Europe. Proper government is not limited to the United States. All government must be proper, must act by the rights and liberties of its people, ensure the blessings of freedom to posterity. It's not just the USA, everyone deserves proper government aimed at the proliferation of the rights and liberties of the People.
 
So your goal for integration is to disparage and discriminate against a groups religion, and doing that is going to cause them to integrate into the society?

Its a radical sect of Islam. We discriminate against terrorists, don't we? Plus, it isn't discrimination since there interpetation to Islam does not have an official status.

I have a better idea, don't keep them poor! Let them work, let them participate, let them become part of the culture. Instead, especially in France, the Muslim immigrents are kept in the poorest of conditions and because of the socialist working system they aren't allowed into better jobs and aren't allowed to participate in society with everyone else.

Thats because they choose not to work, learn the language or integrate. They live in Europe without even learning the language, most of them. And thats the Turks! So imagine how much more conservative these bunch are. Dont move to a country if your not already familiar with the language or cultural ways, otherwise your asking for trouble.

They're purposefully left out and discriminated against. I think if you want to really address issues of integration, you have to turn towards your own policies first.

Can you prove this fact? Your just making ridiculous accusations while remaining ignorant as to WHY they are left out; they havent integrated with US, or learnt OUR language. If they cannot do that, how can we invite them in?


Not everything can be put to a popular vote, we have government to manage certain things. But it must be reminded about who is in charge and it's important to understand the necessities of fighting it when it which to encroach upon the rights and liberties of its people.

If the people didnt believe a certain law made a neccessary compromise to a certain right, they will seek to enroach that law made. This is not the case with the Bhurka ban, the people have that choice, and they dont use it, because the French also share with the government its need and that feeling of importance to preserve the native culture which is being trashed by 3rd world citizens.



That's a horribly fascist statement.

No, im saying small restrictions of freedoms and rights have been HAPPENING here and there in the US. Im not saying that should happen, thats totally wrong. Eg; the hate speech.



I honestly cannot understand your logic. You're authorizing improper government action against the rights and liberties of the People. It's terrible police state, big brother style fascism. You can't see that?

How is it fascism when the government inacts a law that affects a small minority in the country to help stem a native culture that is receding and social tensions in France that is being stirred by such people who refuse to integrate, when the majority of those French people in the country are accepting of such a ban?
 
Its a radical sect of Islam. We discriminate against terrorists, don't we? Plus, it isn't discrimination since there interpetation to Islam does not have an official status.

No it's not, you're discriminating against someone who wanted to wear a swimsuit with a hood on it; not a group of terrorists.

Thats because they choose not to work, learn the language or integrate. They live in Europe without even learning the language, most of them. And thats the Turks! So imagine how much more conservative these bunch are. Dont move to a country if your not already familiar with the language or cultural ways, otherwise your asking for trouble.

They can't get proper jobs, they can't integrate into society. They are kept in the slums and not allowed to improve their lot. You have to allow free access to the society and workplaces if you want people to integrate into it. We're not talking on the whole about terrorists or anything like that. On the whole, Muslims in France are terrible disparaged against, and until that ends you aren't going to foster integration into the society.

Can you prove this fact? Your just making ridiculous accusations while remaining ignorant as to WHY they are left out; they havent integrated with US, or learnt OUR language. If they cannot do that, how can we invite them in?

All you have to do is take an honest look at the system. The slums are inhabited primarily by the Muslim community. It's hard to break into jobs because of the horrible amounts of socialism which permeate the French job markets. Sure, they can try harder to integrate but France has to make it possible to integrate as well.

If the people didnt believe a certain law made a neccessary compromise to a certain right, they will seek to enroach that law made. This is not the case with the Bhurka ban, the people have that choice, and they dont use it, because the French also share with the government its need and that feeling of importance to preserve the native culture which is being trashed by 3rd world citizens.

Well teach them to surrender, and they'll fit right in with the French.
hahah
j/k
But some of these bans are against free expression and practice of religion. I think there can be reasonable claims with IDs and things of that nature, but just wearing a swimsuit with a hood on it goes over the line.

No, im saying small restrictions of freedoms and rights have been HAPPENING here and there in the US. Im not saying that should happen, thats totally wrong. Eg; the hate speech.

There's no law against hate speech in America, those laws are stupid and encroach on the right to freedom of speech. Hate crime legislation, which we do have, is also right out. A crime is a crime and should be treated as such. It doesn't matter if it was perpetrated because of racism or any other form of hate, the crime is to be punished if you infringed upon the rights of others. End of story.

How is it fascism when the government inacts a law that affects a small minority in the country to help stem a native culture that is receding and social tensions in France that is being stirred by such people who refuse to integrate, when the majority of those French people in the country are accepting of such a ban?

You're talking of freedom through the health and power of the State, that's fascism. You don't enslave your freedom to the whims of the State, that's fascism. The State isn't the end all be all of legitimate power, the People are. When you start making arguments based on the prosperity of the State at the cost of liberty and freedom of the individual, you are walking in the realm of fascism.
 
No it's not, you're discriminating against someone who wanted to wear a swimsuit with a hood on it; not a group of terrorists.

And thats called...clothes discrimination? I call it protecting a native culture being trashed by those who cannot integrate. These types of clothing due to there radicalist ideas is a barrier to that integration.


They can't get proper jobs, they can't integrate into society. They are kept in the slums and not allowed to improve their lot. You have to allow free access to the society and workplaces if you want people to integrate into it. We're not talking on the whole about terrorists or anything like that. On the whole, Muslims in France are terrible disparaged against, and until that ends you aren't going to foster integration into the society.

Thats because the Muslims refuse to adapt to our culture, learn our language, and stick with there own lot. So they move to an area with a high Muslim density, and they are all poor, and then what happens? It turns into a Muslim slum. That has nothing to do with our deliberate neglect of these people.



All you have to do is take an honest look at the system. The slums are inhabited primarily by the Muslim community. It's hard to break into jobs because of the horrible amounts of socialism which permeate the French job markets. Sure, they can try harder to integrate but France has to make it possible to integrate as well.

No, integrating yourself is a personal and state affair, deciding to integrate yourself is a personal affair, and there is nothing the state can do if these people choose to stick with there own lot and not learn the language. Your talking crap now Ikari. Those Muslims in France who have learnt the language have managed to find themselves a descent job and lifestyle in France. It has nothing to do with "European racism". There crappy lifestyle is as a result of there own ignorance.


Well teach them to surrender, and they'll fit right in with the French.
hahah
j/k
But some of these bans are against free expression and practice of religion. I think there can be reasonable claims with IDs and things of that nature, but just wearing a swimsuit with a hood on it goes over the line.

Actually im well against them banning this swimsuit. I think that it is a step over the line, and Koriymr the Rat helped me change my mind and reach that conclusion.


You're talking of freedom through the health and power of the State, that's fascism. You don't enslave your freedom to the whims of the State, that's fascism. The State isn't the end all be all of legitimate power, the People are. When you start making arguments based on the prosperity of the State at the cost of liberty and freedom of the individual, you are walking in the realm of fascism.

No i believe in that notion. All im saying is, thats not exactly the truth is it? I told you, i like to consider myself as a pro-capitalist liberal. But the people in our Western Democracies arent actually the legitemate power unless they use force, because our current system of Congress and Parliament is hardly representing the people as well as it could. Sure, congress/parliament is the voice of the people, and therefore stops or passes any law by the government there accordingly, but again, congress/parliament doesn't actually represent the people sufficiently enough unless everything was put to popular vote. Things pass that we as the people are against, like hate speech at the time, stimulus bills, etc, but, hey. They passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom