WELCOME TO CRISISFORUMS.ORG!
(1) Please swing by our "HELP CENTER" to view our forum rules prior to commenting.
(2) Acknowledge that by commenting or posting, you take full responsibility for the content and message of the information you put forth, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
(3) If you would like to post your own discussion threads, just contact one of the staff so we can verify you as a human.

Marine Le Pen refuses to wear headscarf for meeting with Grand Mufti

France's far-right candidate refuses to go into a meeting with Lebanon's top cleric for Sunni Muslims after she is handed a veil.

France's far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has cancelled a meeting with Lebanon's Grand Mufti after refusing to wear a headscarf.

The meeting was part of Ms Le Pen's three-day visit to Lebanon, where she has been meeting senior officials to bolster her foreign policy credentials.

She was scheduled to meet Grand Sunni Muslim Mufti Sheikh Abdel-Latif Derian on Tuesday morning.

But shortly after she arrived at his office, one of his aides tried to give her a headscarf to put on - and she refused.

Ms Le Pen said she had met in the past with the Grand Mufti of Egypt's Al-Azhar, one of the world's top Sunni clerics, without wearing a veil.

She was heard telling an official: "I met the Grand Mufti of Al Azhar, he didn't ask for this. So it's a no.

http://news.sky.com/story/marine-le-pen-refuses-to-wear-headscarf-for-meeting-with-grand-mufti-10776202


"Before you embark on a Journey of Revenge, Dig Two Graves" Confucius (504 bc)
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”
"If angry, count to ten. This will give you time to find a weapon." - Will Spencer

Comments

  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads

    Where was the meeting when she didn't wear a headscarf?


    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • RosieRosie Member, Permitted to post new threads
    Ms Le Pen is leading the polls for the first round of France's presidential election in April, but the same polls show she would lose the deciding round in May.
    (quoted from the same article)

    The polls said Trump would lose too.   Marine Le Pen should be applauded for making a stand.  If countries change their ways to placate new arrivals and don't encourage them to learn the language of their new home they then become slowly colonised by another country.
    By all means if people from another homeland wear headscarves, clogs, lederhosen or cheongsams they should be free to, but it should not be expected of citizens of the country they immigrate to.
    Similarly instead of expecting Australian Aborigines to live our way we should respect their culture, traditions and allow them to live on their own lands if they wish.  We, who've settled since the early 1800's are the visitors.  We give them Native Title and then we pay them a few million dollars to buy it. Sadly they,  as we do have the free choice to accept that which often happens.

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    tazweiss said:

    Where was the meeting when she didn't wear a headscarf?


    Egypt, I believe
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    edited February 22
    The problem that fuels all this is democracy - wherever you have democracy, you have the ability for unscrupulous cliques to take over and wedge their own interests into society
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads
    edited February 22
    The problem that fuels all this is democracy - wherever you have democracy, you have the ability for unscrupulous cliques to take over and wedge their own interests into society


    I wonder, would those who lived under the communist rule of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung have maybe preferred democracy or were they happy with communism?  We could open a debate with those who were ruled by Idi Amin.  Maybe the citizens of North Korea could lecture us on the evils of democracy versus the benefits of communism.

    Democracy may not be perfect but the idea has a great deal of merit.  Yes, in its current form it is so corrupted as to be almost unrecognizable, but the ideal is sound.  The ideal is the power of the people to choose our leaders.  The ideal is that we can choose those with compassion, wisdom and humility to rule over us for a time.  The ideal is sound.

    Communism isn't perfect either and is equally corruptible.  The ideal of communism does have its merits, each according to his ability to each according to his need.  No person has a higher quality of life, no matter their occupation.  It sounds perfect, if you're a dishwasher in the local diner.  Not so perfect if you spend years of your life studying and working toward a Phd. in your chosen field.

    Of coarse, we could have no government, no one to lead and watch over us.  No one to keep us in line and enforce the rules.  That too would come at a cost.  The government builds the highways we drive on.  When the bad guys are smashing at your door, the government sends their enforcers to protect you.  Yes, the government commits a lot of evil but without government, we would still be living in mud huts shivering in fear of the wolf packs that roam the world.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    Just some thoughts based on those thoughts:

    - In a poll taken in 1991 in the Soviet Union prior to its dissolution, 90% of the soviet citizenry voted to keep the socialist form of economy, while adopting a more democratic form of government. What they got instead was a capitalist economy and a mafia-style government. Russia's GDP is not significantly improved after decades of capitalism from what it was in 1991, and the quality of education, health care, and social welfare has dropped exponentially, not to mention rampant unemployment. I just mention these things as interesting facts, because the general impression is that the Soviet Union was some vast dystopian wasteland that everyone hated, when in reality the people there liked the concept, but just wanted to fix it. I also think that a lot of the anti-Stalin stuff lives in the realm of propaganda rather than in reality. Other polls taken in the former Eastern Bloc express a 60-70% majority that feel abandoning socialism for capitalism was a mistake that irreparably weakened their nations.

    - Some of those men are genuine dictators, but some of those men took their nations and transformed them into something no one thought possible, so I don't know if I can classify them all in the same group. If we look at Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and China before their socialist revolutions and afterward, they're two entirely different worlds. I think it would be a shame to confuse the collapse of the socialist network for a failure in those countries themselves. I think it would also be a shame to point at countries and see the terrible things they did and allow those things to cast shadows on all the good things that happened. How come we don't do that with our own countries? George Washington and the Founding Fathers owned hundreds of human beings, bought and sold them like cans of beans. How many natives were killed in North America? I bet just as many as chinamen according to critics of Mao. No empire forms without stepping on the backs of many people. I don't say this in agreement, but it's just how it is. I certainly don't like it.

    - I think many people in those countries would have chosen democracy. The problem is, people don't realize that democracy doesn't really achieve anything aside from allowing organized mobs to come to power. If we could ask the people of Libya today if they would prefer to have Gaddafi back, or continue to have democracy, what would they chose? I actually wonder if any of them have actually had the chance to vote even once after achieving "democracy" in their nation.

    - Interestingly, "communism" (the true communism, not the soviet or maoist version of it where much is done at the point of a bayonet), is based on 100% democracy - and that's precisely why it's so difficult to get off the ground. "Marxism" is bandied about a lot these days pejoratively, but few have actually read Marx, let alone understand what he actually thought. Karl Marx and George Washington had more in common than people realize: Marx hated government, thought it did nothing but oppressed the people, and felt the people themselves, after retaking by birthright the means of production, could manage their own affairs. No intermediaries in suits and ties, or fatigues and epaulets  necessary. No where in Marx's work is there talk about politburos in Moscow, or "Cultural Revolutions" in Beijing. All of the communist gatherings of the 19th century throughout Europe were completely democratic in nature. The Bolsheviks took power in Russia precisely because they circumvented democracy: "Bolshevik" means "Majority" in Russian - even though it was a minority group.

    - I don't know if the core ideal of democracy is good, because it bases itself on the premise that I should surrender my freedom to someone else, or rather a mob, who then make all my decisions for me until (maybe) they give me another chance to choose who my jockey is. A famous french writer, upon visiting America, saw democracy for what it really is: an opportunity for people with no aptitude for leadership to get ever larger quantities of what they desire until the system implodes. Was he wrong? He seems right on the nose to me. So what would happen to me in an authoritarian society? I would still be rode, but the survival of the rider depends on the fitness of his steed. The community becomes a body whole. But maybe he's the type of owner who beats his stable. I don't know the precise answer to this. Well, I do, but I don't think many people would accept it.

    - A "Republic", although people like to pretend it isn't so, is nothing more than a democracy in a different dress. It doesn't avoid any of the pitfalls of democracy. America requires an electoral college precisely so that there is an authoritarian lever to pull in the event that democracy doesn't behave itself. Why not just skip to the climax, then? Families are not lead by vote. Classrooms are not lead by vote. Workplaces are not lead by vote. Temples are not lead by vote. But for some reason, the most important thing of all, the structure of a community, a nation, is. That doesn't make much sense to me. Communities could perhaps benefit from less emotional-opinion-mob-rule, and more meritocracy and efficiency. In my humble opinion, at least. America's "democracy" worked out so well precisely because its original leaders were authoritarian simply by the fact of how intelligent and ambitious they were. It didn't make a difference if George Washington was chosen as president or voted in; no one else could have done the job.
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    I'd just like to add one more thought if I may: if one examines America closely, one will find almost a direct relationship with the expansion of democracy and the decline of the nation--

    Founding of America: Only white landowners could vote. The ideal time everyone reminisces about.

    All men could vote regardless of economic status. American civil war erupts decades later.

    All blacks could "vote", at least on paper. Recessions and cultural degeneracy culminating in the 1920's.

    "Why can't women vote too?"

    "Why can't prisoners retain their right to vote?"

    "Why can't non-citizens vote because they participate in the daily life of the nation?"

    And we can see what transpires in the latter half of the 20th century until today. When 400,000,000 illiterate people with a skull full of emotions and a ballot in their palm decide what happens next, you get Hillary Clintons, Donald Trumps, and who knows who comes next. I imagine he'll have a pitchfork.

    Governing seems to be the only "profession" in which we're satisfied with having non-experts guide us by the hand. To me, this is kind of insane. It's like having a school full of teenagers decide who gets to drive the Formula One race car pulling a wagon full of babies.
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads

    Communist, democratic, theocratic monarchistic, it doesn't matter.  Whatever system is in place, they all lead to the same result.  We end with the elites and the serfs.  The haves and the have not's.  The lords and ladies who look down in scorn on us stable boys and sharecroppers. 

    Many of the problems we ascribe to government isn't caused so much by government as it is by the sheer size and weight of the huge bureaucracy it has become.  Something like the difference between send an elephant through a china shop as opposed to sending a house cat through.  The problem isn't that we allow government to have power over us.  The problems begin when we allow government to have too much power over us.

    Perhaps the best form of government was the kind that was practiced by many aboriginal tribes.  A kind of meritorious form of government.  The chieftain was chosen because he/she had demonstrated the experience and wisdom the people wanted.  As long as that person ruled in a manner that the people felt was beneficial, they were allowed to remain.  If the people felt the person they had chosen was being a poor ruler, he/she would likely to be murdered and replaced.  The incentive to rule with wisdom was there and government was small.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    tazweiss said:

    Communist, democratic, theocratic monarchistic, it doesn't matter.  Whatever system is in place, they all lead to the same result.  We end with the elites and the serfs.  The haves and the have not's.  The lords and ladies who look down in scorn on us stable boys and sharecroppers. 

    Many of the problems we ascribe to government isn't caused so much by government as it is by the sheer size and weight of the huge bureaucracy it has become.  Something like the difference between send an elephant through a china shop as opposed to sending a house cat through.  The problem isn't that we allow government to have power over us.  The problems begin when we allow government to have too much power over us.

    Perhaps the best form of government was the kind that was practiced by many aboriginal tribes.  A kind of meritorious form of government.  The chieftain was chosen because he/she had demonstrated the experience and wisdom the people wanted.  As long as that person ruled in a manner that the people felt was beneficial, they were allowed to remain.  If the people felt the person they had chosen was being a poor ruler, he/she would likely to be murdered and replaced.  The incentive to rule with wisdom was there and government was small.

    This idea alone would earn you the chief's seat in my tribe, at least if I had any say.

    I think you're spot on in that size plays a *huge* role in what happens to the quality of government. The smaller the size of the population being governed, the smaller the government tends to be, and the better it seems to work - until, paradoxically, we reach the individual, and then for some reason chaos begins to creep in.

    Maybe government on a national level is actually the wrong way to go about it, because there's just no way that one city can reasonably administer thousands of others. Maybe a confederation of citystates or community-states is the answer? Anything governing beyond the city level to me seems out of touch with the people's needs. In all honesty, even that seems too large sometimes, and I wonder if cities should have their neighbourhood governments who come together in a sort of city congress when things must be decided on a city-scale.
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • tazweisstazweiss Member, Permitted to post new threads



    This idea alone would earn you the chief's seat in my tribe, at least if I had any say.

    I AM THE CHIEF!

    (My wife gave me permission to say that.)

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    I suppose in our tribe, we know who really wears the feathers
    -------------------
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Lynsey_ADMIN_Lynsey_ADMIN_ Administrator
    say no more


    "Before you embark on a Journey of Revenge, Dig Two Graves" Confucius (504 bc)
    “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”
    "If angry, count to ten. This will give you time to find a weapon." - Will Spencer
Sign In or Register to comment.