There is nothing reasonable about your proposed solution, it's idiotic. Most terrorist can pass a mental health check. The only sensible measure that doesn't seem to be happening atm is stopping people traveling back from certain states in the middle east and even that isn't going to achieve much since you can always travel to a neighbouring country and travel from there off the books.
This is fuck all about 'ooman rights, it's about sensible and effective legislation that actually achieves something, nothing the standard reactionary responses you see in all these threads will actually do. The only thing to do is to go about and live your life normally, rather than giving these jihadi fuckers actual power like you propose with stupid legislation that achieves nothing but penalising law abiding citizens and fostering division,
That number is from studies on British Muslims, so a lot will have become Westernised, or been Westernised before coming to the UK, I am not sure it holds worldwide - I assume it is lower in the US, which has a stricter immigration policy, but higher in Muslim majority countries.
Most Muslims I know personally are fine with democracy, fine with a secular legal system, etc. They also tend to be fine with drinking alcohol, women wearing whatever they want, gays, etc., but it is not really surprising, as unsurprisingly most of the Muslims I know are Westernised ones.
I would prefer a stricter immigration policy and tackling the problem of certain faith schools. However that could lead to clashes with CofE* schools, which on a colour chart of extremism would be beige, legislation would have to be general in order not to clash with our laws.The fundamental disconnect, in that aspect, is with democracy. And how we can out-rule god himself.
I think its fair to admit that there's an incompatibility of values. But I don't think holding said values is incompatible with peaceful and productive living in the west. Anti-democracy is not exactly unheard of among non-Muslims anyway.
Problematic as it is, when it comes to criminalizing behavior, "how you want to achieve it" is, I think, very important.
Maybe we will get the national debate we need, every terrorist attack seems to bring more people acknowledging there is a problem. The calls from within some Muslim communities are growing louder on this as well, as they are not too happy at being lumped in with the non-Westernised Muslims, or that the more extreme Muslims driving the public debate.
*Church of England, where an extremist is someone who tuts loudly at Christmas decorations going up in November.
As much as I hate to say it, it seems more and more countries want to restrict travel from Middle Eastern countries.
The US's policy similar to that was deemed "racist & bigoted" by many on this forum. Now it seems people are championing a similar policy in their own country.
hijab was never an issue.
This is actually wrong, the ban only applies to full-face veils.
Regarding the ban of the other two - realistically, that's mostly parties fishing for votes, seeing that there are barely any women in Austria wearing a niqab or burqa in the first place. Their reasoning isn't really wrong, of course, and I am inclined to agree with them in that regard - but the numbers simple aren't there to make this an overly big issue.The partial prohibition, which has not yet come into effect, will apply to the niqab and burqa but not headscarves (hijabs), which cover the hair and neck only.
Last edited by mmocc02219cc8b; 2017-06-11 at 12:37 PM.
On the bright side, the UK knows what the real problem is:
Two people have been arrested on suspicion of racial hatred after a man filmed himself burning the Koran.
No, I think criminally punishing people for burning the Koran is fucking lunacy. There is no victim. This isn't a real crime. Further, the whole thing reads like a parody:
Just ridiculous.‘We have been in contact with our local Muslim community via Councillor Jabba Riaz, deputy mayor for Worcester, who as always acts as a critical friend in support of what we do.