At least they're forward steps.

Hope it doesn't backfire on them cause these grubs will sign anything to get in the revert back. They're known liars.

When I started serious world wandering in the 1960s, I had to get visas, and that was not always easy unless you had money, and I did not. By the 1970s, it was getting harder to go anywhere without a return ticket.

But now, these bastards just walk in and expect to granted residency and a job. And the open border crowd cite binding UN agreements that where never discussed in any election campaign.

None of the countries being flooded were established without a fight, which is what these freeloaders and cowards should be doing in their own countries if they truly respect democracy. But thats the point, isn't it? They don't.

Bias_2012 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2017 at 11:33pm:


Compulsory instant deportation.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 9:24am:


That will be the day pigs fly.

Auggie wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:


Fair enough. That's your take on it.

For myself, I believe the interests of the community should take priority over the wishes of the individual in those cases where the individual's liberalism interferes with the comfort and cultural expectations of the broader community.

We are social beings supported by societies composed of civilian memberships, and as such it behooves us to behave in a way that comes within the parameters of public expectation.

If one's apparel becomes 'confronting' to the general public, then it has gone beyond the pale of acceptability.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 2:36pm:


I've worked with Austrians.

If the aim is to make these 7th century Neanderthals at least look like 21st century women, then that's a good start to the eventual assimilation of their grandchildren.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 2:48pm:


Live and let live - yes, but not when it's an immigrant community that dresses its women like Aliens so as to better ensure their womenfolk don't have any meaningful communication with the locals.

Why don't you care about their isolation behind a black face-cover?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:


It's not my responsibility or yours to care. It's the individual's responsibility.

Auggie wrote on Oct 7^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:


So long as they choose to walk among us as fellow citizens they owe us the respect and the courtesy of dressing within the parameters of our social values and expectations.

I wouldn't be allowed to shop at my local Supermarket or walk around the streets in a budgie-smuggler and bare feet, and in just the same way is it inappropriate and an abuse of our cultural expectations that these knuckle-dragging religious Neanderthals should cover their faces in anonymous bondage while out-and-about among us.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 10:10am:


A beachside suburb? ~ I'll give you that, but not in one of the Sydney 'Burbs far from the pounding surf.

'Dress Code' imperatives would soon kick in and find you being told to 'dress appropriately' as there are ladies present ... in the Supermarket ... in the bank queue ... in the restaurant ... in the Shopping Mall ... in the library ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 10:36am:

So why dont you go about in a burqa if it's  so sensible 'In this country'?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 10:36am:


We're talking cultural expectations here, whether that's covering up or stripping down inappropriately.

Auggie wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:


It's not a head-scarf.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 1:48pm:


Yes, sorry. The person under the burqa or niqab?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 1:37pm:


A Nazi uniform?

A KKK outfit?

Each to their own?

How about Shia in the local park cutting themselves into a bloody mess with blades on chains?

Each to their own?

Not your business?

Cultural relativity?

Don't be a bigot and an Islamophobe?

..

Auggie wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 5:32pm:


Out in public as someone strolling around? - definitely not.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:


This is where you and I differ.

At least you're consistent in your prohibitions. I'm a libertarian, so I believe that a person has the right to express themselves in such manner. The only exception I would make is prohibiting nudity in public because of children. But, yes a person should be allowed to wear a Nazi or KKK uniform in public. I would condemn it but I don't think they should be punished legally.

Denmark joins Euro nations banning burqa

Published: 11:24 pm, Friday, 6 October 2017




http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/europe/2017/10/06/denmark-joins-euro-nation...

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 5:37pm:


Young'uns have much to learn.

There are camp survivors still alive today for whom that uniform represents terror, loss of family, privation, nightmares, and trembling fear.

When living in the countryside of Berkshire my elderly neighbour's daughter was house-bound as a survivor of Dachau. She was utterly terrified of strangers. I was told by my aunt never to approach her or greet her in any way if she happened to be watering the plants in her backyard.

The sight of a Nazi uniform can trigger a panic attack in those who were there at the time.

It's totally unconscionable and unfair to the survivors and the children of these people to be treated to the sight of someone dressed as a Nazi in public and not being hustled off by the police to go change his clothes.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:


Why?

And why do you get to decide what's appropriate?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 7:51pm:


You need to stop a lot earlier.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:


so we ban swastikas too?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 8^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:


Yes, but what about at a NAZI rally?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 16^th, 2017 at 11:02am:


Kill them.