ITALY has banned Islamic burqas under tough terrorism laws that provide two-year jail terms and E2000 ($3200) fines for anyone caught covering their face in a public place.

The counter-terrorism package, passed by Italy's parliament yesterday, doubles the existing penalty for wearing a burqa or chador -- traditional robes worn by Muslim women to cover their faces -- or full-faced helmets or balaclavas in public.

Police can extract DNA samples without a suspect's consent, detain them for 24 hours without a lawyer present, and deport foreigners suspected of terrorism under the new legislation. Soldiers involved in counter-terrorism have been given the same stop-and-search powers.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16110721%255E2703,00.html

wow...

Glad I'm not a terrorist.

Europe is always the first to complain about the USA even though they are always the first to steal rights and **** with civil liberties beyond what we ever could. France is currently trying to boot Imam's who incite terrorism, even to the point of stripping them of their citizenship.

Now the UK is following suit.

U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/08/05/194668.html


LONDON - Foreigners who preach hatred, sponsor violence or belong to extremist groups could be deported from Britain under strict new measures that Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Friday, nearly a month after suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transit system.

Membership in extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir would become a crime under the new measures. The group, which advocates the creation of an Islamic state in Central Asia, already is outlawed in several countries.

Blair said the government also would compile a list of Web sites, bookshops and centers that incite hatred and violence. British nationals involved with such organizations could face strict penalties. Foreign nationals could be deported, he said.

Does anyone have anything to say about these actions in Europe? Or is it acceptable because it's Europe? :rolleyes:

Now the UK is following suit.

U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/08/05/194668.html




Does anyone have anything to say about these actions in Europe? Or is it acceptable because it's Europe? :rolleyes:


You probably don't believe me and think I'm being hypocritical to my uber-left P.C. views :rolleyes:, but I'd say we need the same thing here, to a certain point, just as to not be oblivious to people holding strong views and preaching violence against americans IN america. It's not like they're gonna ship off every protester, but if there is any hint of organized anti-american activism with intent and means to do harm, there should be a way for us as a country to get them off our soil and reduce any chances they may have to carry out any plans.

Does anyone have anything to say about these actions in Europe? Or is it acceptable because it's Europe? :rolleyes:

It's unacceptable here because it's contrary to the constitution upon which the United States is founded.

As far as I know, no nation besides the united states is bound by our constitution. Why? Do you have a problem with this, Salty? :rolleyes:

Edited for salty's satisfaction.

Europe is always the first to complain about the USA even though they are always the first to steal rights and **** with civil liberties beyond what we ever could. France is currently trying to boot Imam's who incite terrorism, even to the point of stripping them of their citizenship.
Show me where "Europe" is complaining about the USA. :rolleyes:

Again with the sloppy language. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

...so when is this smiley going to be disabled in this forum?

It's unacceptable here because it's contrary to the constitution upon which the United States is founded.

Wow. Where do you get these third grade social studies answers?

Based on which amendment? Free speech nor freedom of religion does not apply under these circumstances. Google Professor Ali Al-Timimi and get back to me on how you're clearly wrong. His crime was not any act of terrorism or violence. We put him away for life recently because his jaws wouldn't stop flapping.

It's unacceptable here because it's contrary to the constitution upon which the United States is founded.

As far as I know, no nation besides the united states is bound by our constitution. Why? Do you have a problem with this, Salty? :rolleyes:

Heard of the patriot act? ...were only bound when we want to be.

...nothing against the patriot act, it just takes integrity from the constitution.

...and anyone with a brain should be able to realize that european countries can do this more easily and with less scrutiny, because they arent the beacon of freedom, equality, and justice that America supposedly is. I have to say that it is unfortunate that we must live up to this in every circumstance or face the 'wrath' of the ACLU, etc., who are quick to label any withholding of rights as rampant facism.

sigh. how do you juggle our personal rights with the need to police & ensure the overall safety of the country?

i do like the resolve of the italian & english governments though.

sigh. how do you juggle our personal rights with the need to police & ensure the overall safety of the country?



Thats the question at hand... It takes care, discretion, and patience, to start. ...oh, sorry... we're all out of that. :D

sigh. how do you juggle our personal rights with the need to police & ensure the overall safety of the country?

Simple. You do what Italy is doing and what France and the UK are trying to do. Or you lock them up for life and throw away the key like America has done. You have zero tolerance for radical Imam's, other radical Islamic leaders and their followers. By kicking them out of the country you take out the key element of them not being able to attack us on our soil. Seems worth it, doesn't it? These are changing times and we have to adjust accordingly. Sucks that it has to be this way but it's not our doing in the first place.

It's really as cut and dry as this. And there's no problems or domino effect to be considered for other religions. If they were to incite their anti-American version of "jihad" then we deport their asses or lock them up (if they cannot be deported) post haste. The problem is no other religions have the tendency to do this on Western soil so civil rights activists confuse these zero tolerance actions as American bigotry and bulliness towards potential jihadists (Muslims).

Thing is, deaths threats have always been punishable. If you're the root of hatred and decide to open your mouth about it in public you better be willing to handle the consequences.

Simple. You do what Italy is doing and what France and the UK are trying to do. Or you lock them up for life and throw away the key like America has done. You have zero tolerance for radical Imam's, other radical Islamic leaders and their followers. By kicking them out of the country you take out the key element of them not being able to attack us on our soil. Seems worth it, doesn't it? These are changing times and we have to adjust accordingly. Sucks that it has to be this way but it's not our doing in the first place.

It's really as cut and dry as this. And there's no problems or domino effect to be considered for other religions. If they were to incite their anti-American version of "jihad" then we deport their asses or lock them up (if they cannot be deported) post haste. The problem is no other religions have the tendency to do this on Western soil so civil rights activists confuse these zero tolerance actions as American bigotry and bulliness towards potential jihadists (Muslims).

Thing is, deaths threats have always been punishable. If you're the root of hatred and decide to open your mouth about it in public you better be willing to handle the consequences.

I support civil rights any time I can, but if you ask any american 'civil rights activist' how they would deal with those posing an immenent threat on our own soil, I'm sure they would also say that action should be taken.. if that means booting them out or locking them up, so be it. I'm willing to bet that it is a select few who choose to label such acts as bigotry and bulliness -- you are perpetuating an incorrect generalization by implying that these people have no interest in thier own personal safety or national security.

Not everyone fits the mold you would like them for the sake of your argument, which is flimsy at best.

Supporting civil rights and combating terror aren't mutually exclusive - you CAN have a balance between the two, no matter what you may say or believe.

Not everyone fits the mold you would like them for the sake of your argument, which is flimsy at best.

Speak for yourself: but if you ask any american 'civil rights activist' how they would deal with those posing an immenent threat on our own soil, I'm sure they would also say that action should be taken

Wow. Where do you get these third grade social studies answers?

Based on which amendment? Free speech nor freedom of religion does not apply under these circumstances. Google Professor Ali Al-Timimi and get back to me on how you're clearly wrong. His crime was not any act of terrorism or violence. We put him away for life recently because his jaws wouldn't stop flapping.

Al-timimi was convicted for inciting terrorism. So how am I wrong?

Wearing burqas is not similar to what al-timimi did. Religious garb is protected by the first ammendment, clearly.

Obviously, I am opposed to the type of legislation enacted as refered to by this thread, but Different countries have different laws.

Speak for yourself:

I believe you were making the generalizations. I simply said they weren't true, and not every civil rights activist would hold civil rights above protecting our country, given certain circumstances. Get real. People aren't that stupid, as much as it seems you'd like them to be.

Wearing burqas is not similar to what al-timimi did. Religious garb is protected by the first ammendment, clearly.



Now, if this legislation would make it possible to deport or lock up those who dare to wear islamic garb, I'd feel differently. I may be wrong, but it is my impression that action would be taken only where there was convincing proof of a violent anti-american threat.

Al-timimi was convicted for inciting terrorism. So how am I wrong?

Wearing burqas is not similar to what al-timimi did. Religious garb is protected by the first ammendment, clearly.

Obviously, I am opposed to the type of legislation enacted as refered to by this thread, but Different countries have different laws.

Oh I see... I thought you were talking about the new UK link I posted seeing how you quoted it in post #7, not the link in the first post. Sloppy quoting I suppose... ;)

I agree. I was just trying to make my point on deportation and how freedom of religion or speech does not apply under the given circumstances not pertaining to religious garb. I think the anti-burqa portion of Italy’s "anti-terror package" is the wrong answer.

Oh I see... I thought you were talking about the new UK link I posted seeing how you quoted it in post #7, not the link in the first post. Sloppy quoting I suppose... ;)

I agree. I was just trying to make my point on deportation and how freedom of religion or speech does not apply under the given circumstances not pertaining to religious garb. I think the anti-burqa portion of Italy’s "anti-terror package" is the wrong answer.

Oh snap. I guess I didn't read the link thoroughly... With the 'askmuslims.com' thread in mind, that could possibly be the single WORST way of dealing with the problem.

If I was a peaceful muslim that got deported from a 'free' country because I wouldn't take a piece of cloth off my head, I just may go back home and join a few friends and who are planning an elaborate attack against that country...

This is an extremely important, extremely urgent problem, however, it also extremely delicate. In order to move in the direction we'd like (to reduce threats and future terrorists), everyone's feelings must be considered. Unless we want to get genocidal and wipe out a certain ethnicity just to be safe, we have to be extremely careful that our actions against terror don't compromise the freedom or rights of peaceful muslims to the point where we are breeding anti-american sentiment here at home and eroding the foundations which this country was built on. If we deport everyone and segregate by religion, then prepare for WWIII in the near future. If we aren't careful, our actions may have the complete opposite effect than what we intended.

... but as always ... easier said than done -- but at least it's been said. ;)

Oh I see... I thought you were talking about the new UK link I posted seeing how you quoted it in post #7, not the link in the first post. Sloppy quoting I suppose... ;)



I was specifically addressing why it is relatively more okay in europe than it is here.

I see, while quoting the 'U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures' story in post #7. Good call seeing how there wasn't any mention of garbs or burqas in that particular story. In doing so you weren't being specific as you thought.

Seems you sloppily quoted one thing and then reverted back to the original story in the initial post by IS2scooby. Either that or you did not read the 'U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures' story whatsoever. How very sloppy of you. ;)

Eject suspected terrorists out of this country with enough force for them to bounce on their turbans is what I say.

I see, while quoting the 'U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures' story in post #7. Good call seeing how there wasn't any mention of garbs or burqas in that particular story. In doing so you weren't being specific as you thought.

Seems you sloppily quoted one thing and then reverted back to the original story in the initial post by IS2scooby. Either that or you did not read the 'U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures' story whatsoever. How very sloppy of you. ;)
No, I was answering the question asked in YOUR POST. I didn't read the article because I'm a lazy schmuck.

I do agree, though, that the actions taken by the U.K. are reasonable. I also believe that they would be found to be constitutional. HOWEVER, we would just throw those folks in Gitmo, which in my opinion, is not.

No, I was answering the question asked in YOUR POST.

If you say so. I realize this now seeing how you reverted back to garbs but didn't then seeing how you sloppily quoted the other story.

Listen, all I’m saying practice what you preach by not being sloppy, mmmkay?

Bah, humbug.

Hmmmm... "Tube Warning"

Why is France so damn worried? The terrorists love their lack of motivation and cowardice in reference to radicals and all types of violent conflict.