A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

I WILL NOT SUBMIT!!!

We should make it illegal right now.

We still have a very free country. We are allowed weapons, a lot of privacy. We are considered innocent until proven guilty. To make such a system work, we have to be able to defend ourselves with our brains as well as our weapons because we do not pre-emptively act against potential lawbreakers.

We need to be able to identify people. The face is absolutely required. It is not an option, unless you want to stay home behind closed curtains. Leaving the country is an even better solution because we do not need immigrants who will not accommodate our system.

Business people have a right to see the face of the client who may also be a potential con-man or hit-man.

Teachers have a right to see the face of who is posing as the parent.

People on the street have a right to see the face of the potential mugger standing at the bus stop.

Police have a right to see the face of anyone they approach. A masked figure in burka could be a male or a female. They do not have to risk death to make a bunch of non-assimilaters happy.

Our nation has the right to take all those who intend to buck the system and reject their immigration applications.

If they are already citizens, they should have to accommodate their fellow citizens in public or face rejection, legal discrimination, or the law.

This is not Saudi Arabia.

IMHO any business has the right to refuse to serve anyone with a covered face.

The covered face is the face of death.

A little pushing back. Some excuse to do a little pushing back.

Blair:

All I’m saying is we need to have this debate about integration … There is a broader question …

British Prime Minister Tony Blair made statements concerning the uproar Jack Straw ignited when he stated earlier in the month that the muslim veil was a ’sign of seperation’ from the larger community of Britain.

Tony Blair has said the we…

The full face covering is rediculous there is no religious reason for this other than the community finds muslim men dogs-in-heat all the time. This may be true I don’t know but if the sight of a womans nose drives you into a testosterone rage that ruins all of your pure pious thoughts then all these men need to seek help or just all get together and blow themselves
up in the desert. The idea of protecting women by hiding them is stupid. These men need some anti-viagra.

I think PC Europeans know in their heart of hearts that even “moderate Islam” contains a threat to them, but they are terrified to say the truth out loud because of the PC police. What Blair and Straw are doing is unexpected and brave, and sets a welcome precedent.

Good example, but isn’t there still a few close-knit communities that practice monogamy without much law enforcement interference?

I’m sure most of Utah practices monogamy without much law enforcement interference…

I think you mean bigamy, and yes there are some wackos in the four corners area that practice bigamy. However, the FBI and the local officals are trying to crack down on them (like Jeffs) when they are doing something beyond the “consensual adults” thing.

It is also improtant to note that the offical “Mormon” Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has not practiced bigamy since before 1900. However like most churches, the radicals offshoots have their own ideas.

“Westboro Baptist Church” being an example of an extreme offshoot of the otherwise respectable Baptist Church.

Intractable–you can say that again.

Making the veil illegal is silly IMO. Attacking the symbol of the problem, not the problem.

What’s next? Corsets?

In this day and age of thin being so very much in, I think some women would welcome a corset. It would allow them to be as fat as they want while still being able to keep an hour glass figure under a dress.

Besides, allowing a large portion of the population to walk around masked is problematic…

I’ll say! Bahrain had to establish a rule that, while women are allowed to drive cars (they’re liberal that way) they couldn’t drive while covered. Reason? Too many young studs were dressing in drag in order to cruise unchaperoned!

Yet another reason to ban the hats. Muslims seem determined to drive London back into the Victorian era. What’s next? Corsets? Feinting? Feathered fans?

All the elements are there: Europe, the crescent, violence, and sex. Does it demonstrate how continentals seduced by the new faith turn quickly to violence?

I’m sorry, but I’m not quite following you here. I don’t think this had to do with a conversion per say. Unless this is some sort of metaphore for how Islam and violence always seemed to be intertwined “Religeon of Peace” not withstanding.

Timesonline:

The court heard how the two men, neither of whom are Muslim but who share an interest in Islam, chatted without incident until Gibbons began talking to a teenage girl in the same chat room. Gibbons subsequently accused Mr Jones of telling other chat room users he was a paedophile.

AP? I always figured you for Steyn-esque pessimist concerning the future of Europe. And here you go goofing on the man’s wordsmithing?! The nerve!

;)

We also allowed Utah to become a state only if it prohibited polygamy.

Good example, but isn’t there still a few close-knit communities that practice monogamy without much law enforcement interference?

And, Allah, if what you quoted about the veils is true, then there would be no intrusion of religious rights if the burka hoods were outlawed. Besides, allowing a large portion of the population to walk around masked is problematic, as seen through the ridiculous hospital gowns that were recently designed.

As for the hijab, it should be noted that Muslim clerics in Iran only discovered in 1979 that the Quran mandates it.

That freaked me out, ’cause she doesn’t read about this stuff, at all. She leaves that stuff to me. Yin & Yang, right?

When in Rome, do as the Romans. Stay in the dunes if you want to wear a veil. Otherwise, get with the program.