Spartacus said:
Screw political correctness, I dont care about that. But you went to the other extreme, grouping all people together. Thats like saying all Americans are gun-hating liberalists. GERMANY didnt try to destroy the Jews, the elements in power did. (yes with support from some of the populous, but to say the entire country would be folly). Those who tried to exterminate the Jews are no brothers of mine, regardless of nationality.
Well then its no different in Sweeden, those in the elements of power are catering to those who hate the Jews. Now some Germans are in a position to say something, instead they don't and go along with the expected left-wing ideal and siding with anti-Jewish factions when they don't know whats really behind it.
So yeah France...
The Muslim population in france represents about 5% to 10% of the total populous. Thats compared to the 83% to 88% of the Roman Catholics. (CIA).
Headscarf Ban. Look at why the French enforced the headscarf ban. The country has a "passionate commitment to secularism and the republican ideal of separation between church and state"(YaleGlobal). The debate wasn't over the headscarves themselves, but over whether or not they should be allowed to wear a religous symbol, something other religons were not allowed to do. If the French government all of a sudden said that was ok, would the majority (Roman Catholics) not have been upset at the inconsistancy??
I am not denying that France stood up to the Muslims, but they had to in order to avoid a bigger, more imminant problem with Roman Catholics had they not.
Yes that fact is they stand up to Muslim beliefs and make their own polocies as they see fit. An idea which you totaly misrepresent here. It makes me wonder if you even read the article you, yourself provided.
Where is the mention of the problem with the Catholics in the article (which they don't have a problem with catholic to begin with). I didn't not see it in the article.
If you really read the article although the ban prohibits all conspicous religious items the main aim was to help forcibly integrate Muslims into French society.
The French ideal of strict separation of church and state has pushed the government to ban this "conspicuous" display of religious identity in state schools. Moreover, some feminists and government officials consider the veil to be a repressive symbol, directed at subjugating women.
You made it seem like the article was saying something totaly different when it wasn't.
It makes me wonder how treat all the other articles that I showed, you substitute your own information based on none of its contents, and simply your own reasoning. Which is at this point looking rather dubious.
Here is more on the headscarf ban to prove my point about France's standing up to Muslim pressure, and also to prove what you are saying is not true:
France Bans Head Scarves In School
The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned,
but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms.
Raffarin insisted
the law was needed to contain the spread of Muslim fundamentalism and ensure that the principle of secularism on which France is based remains intact.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml
Please don't give us a bunch of baloney that this was really about the Catholic problem.
That fact is they stood up and did not give in like the Swedish.
Beautiful Atrocities
The information drawn from this source is severly questionable. When other topics include "YES THEY'RE NAKED, BUT ARE THEY CHRISTIAN?" (Which makes no sense compared to the topic it addresses) and "MARYSCOTT O'CONNOR IS A FUN DATE", how credible is this source? At the "ME" page it gives nothing other than a picture and his likes and dislikes. I need a little bit more than something that "Jeff" posts on his blog.
I'm sure they come from offical sources. But I'm too lazy too look for them right not, and prove you wrong.
Islamic law used by secular Swedish court
This information seems to be drawn from a more, although still questionable source. Ignoring the source, the story he addresses deals with how a divorce case was handled. The man was "an Iranian man living in Sweden. He had married an Iranian woman, but was now reluctant to live with her anymore because of suspected infidelity." The court ruled that the man, according to 'Fjordman', had to pay his ex-wife an "islamic dowry". Okay, click on the link that is the defination of this "dowry". THere is no definition provided for either Islamic "dowry" or "dowry" after searching the page for it.
Dictionary.com: "Money or property brought by a bride to her husband at marriage" Now wait... Fjordman claims its the other way around. So we must look at the court to decided why they made the choice they did.
The point is why bend over backwards to do this, why not treat it like any other Swedish divorce settlement.
The thing and danger with court rullings are they set a thing called a "precedent" which all law thereafter is based upon.
Most all other countries deal with this kind of thing based on their own law.
Ikea manuals sexist, says Norwegian PM
So the argument presented is that the Swedish company IKEA is sexist because "...the Swedish furniture giant is guilty of stereotyping because only men are shown assembling furniture in its instruction booklets."
OMG... talk about political correctness. If that is as sexist it gets in Ikea, women have nothing to worry about. Who cares?? In the article provided, it also suggests that perhaps the Norwegian Prime Minister merely have been "...indulging in Norwegian regional rivalry with its neighbour, often manifesting itself as Sweden-bashing."(Guardian)
Ikea's excuse as to why there are only men on the books sounds like a stretch. In my OPINION, it seems like it was an oversight, and an attempt to save face and maintain "their anti-discriminatory policy". (Guardian)
You have this habit of missing the original point and totaly misrepresenting the articale and add whatever you want and try to make it something that it isn't.
The original point was Ikea catering to Muslims.
"We have to take account of cultural factors," was all a spokeswoman would say yesterday.
"In Muslim countries it's problematic to use women in instruction manuals," she added.
That's a quote from the company spokesperson an official representative of the company. So there.
Dont make the mistake of jumping to conclusions off of a few publications, particulary those that are not known for their credibility. One could argue that the Feminist initiative group played a role in Swedens withdrawl from the exercise because other nations had very few women in their militaries. I know that is preposterous, but I was using this assumption to prove a point.
I didn't jump to conclusions, my presentation of the articles were right on.
You were misrepresenting them to prove prove your point.
Perhaps Sweden withdrew because of Islamic pressure, or perhaps because of extremist left, or feminist groups, I DONT KNOW. But rather than assume we know why, maybe we should ask them.
Go ahead, they'll probably give you some official excuse again.
As for me I'm not into eating a platefull of BS like you do.
I've already posted all the sources including those which shows nothing being done about anti-Semetism in Sweden and how the left-wing does support thing anti-Israel and side with the Muslims.
To which you did agree, here I'll quote you...
Spartacus said:
Gladius... I agree with you on all points
So make up your mind, do you agree or not?!?
Hey if you don't believe it then its up to you. You can pretend this stuff doesn't exist due to technicalities or whatever... join the rest of them who turn a blind eye if you want.
Yes there is no bais in Sweden against Israel, suuure theress it has all got a perfectly good explantion to it, sure it does.
Sweden Boycotts Israel, Embraces Hamas
A Swedish official told Israel Radio that Israel was not currently advancing peace and was therefore not fit to take part in the exercise.
Sweden has increasingly led anti-Israel moves in Europe, and the Swedish government has just recently granted visas to members of the Hamas terror group as well. Sweden’s Ambassador Robert Rydberg was called to Israel’s Foreign Ministry Thursday to explain the move.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=102687
So lemme get this straight according to Sweden Israel is not advancing peace, ...and Hamas is?
Isn't that a little biased there, care to explain that?