News Stories

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Cyrus17

Fixed

(Well I won't mind if Swiss state proves that I'm wrong with its future actions.)

Actually, if we go this way, one could say that our noise regulations were already against religious freedom, as they forbid megaphone discourses like the call for prayer.

Yet I don't remember anybody complaining about it. So if people were fine with abiding with the laws regulating noise, why can't they abide with the ones regulating construction?

BTW, as I explained above, our building regulations are extremely strict, and our people are very attached to the uniqueness of our land.

For example, the King of Thailand gift to the city of Lausanne had to go trough a long debate and procedure before being finally built, and that wasn't even in a residential area but in a park.

And if some would feel that allowing other religions to build domes would be unfair, the thing is that golden foiled domes and bulbs have been part of our landscape for centuries already.

I'm pretty sure that if they were willing to mark their community centers with domes, there would be far less opposition, their significance and impact being resented differently.

[Zu Ra]

Who would have ever though in there wildest dreams Tupac Makes Vatican MySpace Playlist

[Ansalem]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Yet I don't remember anybody complaining about it. So if people were fine with abiding with the laws regulating noise, why can't they abide with the ones regulating construction?

BTW, as I explained above, our building regulations are extremely strict, and our people are very attached to the uniqueness of our land.

The thing is, the referendum wasn't about banning tall towers that would affect the landscape. It's about banning minarets.

I can understand the desire to want to maintain aesthetics of an area. I can also sympathize with those who would support such a ban for trying to maintain a cultural identity. However, the issue is certainly about more than simple construction regulation. There are growing numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Minarets are a religious symbol, but they are also seen by some as seen a sign of political power and "spreading of Islamic fundamentalism," and certainly this is a large portion of the support for a minaret ban.

Church steeples are similar in shape and meaning. There's nothing in the Bible requiring them for worship, just as there is nothing requiring minarets in the Qur'an. I imagine that there are some steeples in Switzerland (my google of Swiss churches seems to confirm that ). Yet the ban does not include them. I think the reason people are upset is not that they don't think Switzerland has a right to protect its architectural aesthetics, but rather that a structure of the Muslim religion is being specifically targeted, and would seem to infringe on religious freedom.

[Shadow Kira01]

FOCUS: Okada's visit irks Okinawans as fate of U.S. base remains uncertain

''I don't think there was any point to this meeting...the minister probably just wanted an alibi so he could say he had listened to the people,'' Ikuo Nishikawa, 65, who runs a hardware store, said after attending the one-hour gathering.

However, Okada started off the meeting with Nago residents by saying that the DPJ's election manifesto did not specifically promise that the Futemma facility would be relocated outside of the prefecture, although it did make reference to reexamining the realignment of U.S. military forces in Japan.

''I came here with hope and expectations, but now I'm dismayed,'' Nishikawa from Nago's Henoko area said.

''I told the minister how much I expected from the launch of a DPJ government and how local residents have had a hard time (over the issue)...but the minister just said that the situation is tough, and he gave the same answer even to other questions,'' Nishikawa said.

Other participants, clearly irritated by what could be taken as Okada's efforts to get local residents to accept the existing plan, shouted, ''Why don't you decide at an early date to move the facility out the prefecture?'' and ''Are you going to sacrifice Okinawa?''

Yoshitami Oshiro, a 69-year-old Nago city assembly member, criticized Okada for ''mostly making excuses'' in the meeting and said, ''I wonder what he came for.''

''There is no need to be afraid of the United States. It was impossible in the first place to settle the issue by the end of the year,'' a government source said.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Narona

I studied it. Plus, I also watch a lot of documentaries with real recordings from that times, with a lot of interviews.

Recently, I watched the part when Hitler was reclaiming the parts of czechoslovakia in which some german people were living, just before the WWII.

At that time, neither Chamberlain nor Daladier did anything to stop him.

After the last meeting between Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini (mussolini, pointed in the documentary, who was helping Hitler. What he proposed when he took a map and a paper in his pocket was something made and given to him by hitler before the meeting); Daladier knew what they had done (aka nothing to save the czechoslovakia and accepting all that Hitler wanted, while trying to appease him because they chickened like cowards, while they had accords about protecting some allies). When he arrived in France, he thought "will i be acclamed by the french? or will they realize what we have done?". At the moment when they opened the door of the plane, he saw that the French didn't understand anything and were acclaiming him. He then commented about the French to the person beside him: "Les cons" (translation: "idiots/morons").

And now the good part. An official german said that if at that time the English and the French had tried to crush the Germans (at that precise time, it was clearly said they had the means to do it, whether you believe it or not.), they would have won, because at that time Hitler and his army were not that ready and prepared.

So yeah, they concluded that if the English and French had made something instead of bending over at Hitler, the WWII would have been very different.

See the thing is, they didn't have the means. Britain was completely unprepared for war. France had adopted a purely defensive strategy. Neither had any way of deploying forces to confront Germany, whether you believe it or not. It's not just a matter of having x number of troops. You need a way to get those troops to where they're needed, and neither Britain nor France had that capacity. It's easy enough to say that if France had deployed a large force to the Rhineland when Germany remilitarized it, they would have been able to force them out without much of a fight. On paper that's entirely true. However, France couldn't deploy more than a token force before the Germans dug in enough to turn it into a fight and Britain would take even longer and of course would need French permission. They knew that, so they didn't try to act.

If they had acted sooner, yes, WWII would have looked very different, France likely wouldn't have fallen for one. However, it still would have been bloody. Also, you have to remember, we know what happened. They didn't. It's easy to look back and say it should be obvious that Hitler wasn't going to stop. However, the leaders in Britain and France didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What they did have was memory of the deadliest war in European history just 20 years earlier. Further, both Britain and France used the appeasement period to build up and modernize their forces. It's not like they were delusional about it. Here's a link about the British build up in the mid 30s. Note the massive jump in military spending in 1937, 1938, and then when war finally breaks out in 1939. Haven't found as much for France though.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

See the thing is, they didn't have the means.

I searched a bit in online download for the documentary I talked about, but only found another one that aired last year (and so that i watched already last year), that goes less in details about the accords of Munich, czechoslovakia, and what the French and English could do.

So, I did my part, I spread the infos, and I'll be sure to share said socumentary (the one i talked about yesterday) once it airs again.

Feel free to not trust what I posted in the meantime.

About the French thought, when Daladier got back to Paris after the accords of Munich, people around him were actually disappointed by the decision took by him and Chamberlain to not strike germany. Daladier then said "don't worry..., the war will start soon enough". They alreday knew that the war would happen and were kind of prepared to strike before it if they had made that choice, which they didn't. Their main error was to be scared by Hitler's presence, and being hypocritical about saving the peace since as said above, daladier and surely chamberlain too knew that Hitler will start a WWII sooner or later. But instead of striking germany now, they let Hitler the time to prepare his army to the fullest, and were outnumbered when the WWII began for real. They've mistaken the real ressources of the german army. As it was said in the documentary (sorry to prefer to trust it rather than you), at that precise time, they had the time and the means to strike germany with success since the german army was not as prepared as chamberlain thought it was, but they didn't do it.

edit: gonna check the other documentary that i watched in 2008 anyway (Le Dessous des Accords de Munich).

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Narona

I searched a bit in online download for the documentary I talked about, but only found another one that aired last year (and so that i watched already last year), that goes less in details about the accords of Munich, czechoslovakia, and what the French and English could do.

So, I did my part, I spread the infos, and I'll be sure to share said socumentary (the one i talked about yesterday) once it airs again.

Feel free to not trust what I posted in the meantime.

About the French thought, when Daladier got back to Paris after the accords of Munich, people around him were actually disappointed by the decision took by him and Chamberlain to not strike germany. Daladier then said "don't worry..., the war will start soon enough". They alreday knew that the war would happen and were kind of prepared to strike before it if they had made that choice, which they didn't. Their main error was to be scared by Hitler's presence, and being hypocritical about saving the peace since as said above, daladier and surely chamberlain too knew that Hitler will start a WWII sooner or later. But instead of striking germany now, they let Hitler the time to prepare his army to the fullest, and were outnumbered when the WWII began for real. They've mistaken the real ressources of the german army. As it was said in the documentary (sorry to prefer to trust it rather than you), at that precise time, they had the time and the means to strike germany with success since the german army was not as prepared as chamberlain thought it was, but they didn't do it.

edit: gonna check the other documentary that i watched in 2008 anyway (Le Dessous des Accords de Munich).

The BEF and French army outnumbered the Germans during the invasion of France. They also had superior equipment. They still lost. You're absolutely right that the German army that went into the Rhineland in 1936 was not the same well trained well equipped force that smashed Poland, France, and the low countries. However, the French and British army also weren't as capable as they were in 1939. Again you're right, they knew war was coming. They were doing all they could to prepare for it. Yes, they had the troops on paper, but they lacked the means to get them there. Troops can't just teleport to where they're needed after all.

Also, you say you trust that documentary more then me? Fine fair enough, I'm just a random person posting on the internet. However, does the documentary say how France would get the troops to the Rhineland in time? Does it say where they were deployed and what transportation they have at their disposal in order to get to the Rhineland? Or does it simply say France has x number of troops who were better equipped then German forces that they could have used while glossing over the logistics required to actually get them there? Yes, France could have won eventually, but it would have taken time to mobilize their forces, time which the Germans would use to dig in and prepare. Once that happened, it would not be a quick and easy war to force them out if Hitler decides to fight.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

Who would have ever though in there wildest dreams Tupac Makes Vatican MySpace Playlist

that's on one of my 2pac's top list along with "(gotta) Keep Ya Head Up" and "Dear Mama".

(PS they should hear 2pac's rendition of "Hail Mary")

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Narona

I searched a bit in online download for the documentary I talked about, but only found another one that aired last year (and so that i watched already last year), that goes less in details about the accords of Munich, czechoslovakia, and what the French and English could do.

So, I did my part, I spread the infos, and I'll be sure to share said socumentary (the one i talked about yesterday) once it airs again.

Feel free to not trust what I posted in the meantime.

About the French thought, when Daladier got back to Paris after the accords of Munich, people around him were actually disappointed by the decision took by him and Chamberlain to not strike germany. Daladier then said "don't worry..., the war will start soon enough". They alreday knew that the war would happen and were kind of prepared to strike before it if they had made that choice, which they didn't. Their main error was to be scared by Hitler's presence, and being hypocritical about saving the peace since as said above, daladier and surely chamberlain too knew that Hitler will start a WWII sooner or later. But instead of striking germany now, they let Hitler the time to prepare his army to the fullest, and were outnumbered when the WWII began for real. They've mistaken the real ressources of the german army. As it was said in the documentary (sorry to prefer to trust it rather than you), at that precise time, they had the time and the means to strike germany with success since the german army was not as prepared as chamberlain thought it was, but they didn't do it.

edit: gonna check the other documentary that i watched in 2008 anyway (Le Dessous des Accords de Munich).

So this was aired in your country's media?

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Ansalem

The thing is, the referendum wasn't about banning tall towers that would affect the landscape. It's about banning minarets.

Actually the point at first was to clarify, asking the whole citizens, whether a broad interpretation of religious freedom allowed for those particular tall towers to be built despite legitimate opposition from the neighbors (and I can ensure you that peoples and instances can be quite nagging in this regard: a roof 30cm too high and you're toast, etc..).

I can understand the desire to want to maintain aesthetics of an area. I can also sympathize with those who would support such a ban for trying to maintain a cultural identity. However, the issue is certainly about more than simple construction regulation. There are growing numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Minarets are a religious symbol, but they are also seen by some as seen a sign of political power and "spreading of Islamic fundamentalism," and certainly this is a large portion of the support for a minaret ban.

Actually, even if this wasn't reflected a lot in international media, there were muslims who voted in favor of the initiative, as well as peoples from muslims countries finding it a good thing.

[MrTerrorist]

Muslim woman 'abused' over dress by Christian hotelier
A Muslim woman was asked by a Christian hotelier if she was a terrorist and a murderer because she was wearing Islamic dress, a court has been told.

Now that's just wrong & mean.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Now that's just wrong & mean.

Mean perhaps, but I'm not sure about wrong. If they had said she couldn't stay if she wore the hijab, I'd say it was wrong, but they didn't. They allowed her to stay. People do not have a right to not be offended though. The hotel owners had every right to say those things about mohammad and wearing hijabs. Though if they did get into a shouting match over it, that might change things depending on who started it. Not really enough information there for me to really make a judgement.

[Anh_Minh]

We don't know what happened, but I really don't think it's right to go after people calling them "terrorists" and making a scene.

[Ansalem]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Mean perhaps, but I'm not sure about wrong. If they had said she couldn't stay if she wore the hijab, I'd say it was wrong, but they didn't. They allowed her to stay. People do not have a right to not be offended though. The hotel owners had every right to say those things about mohammad and wearing hijabs. Though if they did get into a shouting match over it, that might change things depending on who started it. Not really enough information there for me to really make a judgement.

They linked the article too. TL;DR = On the last day of her stay, the woman came down in a hijab (she had been wearing casual Western clothing until this point) and was yelled at and harassed by the inn keeper and wife, chasing her around the hotel. Other witnesses seem to confirm her statements.

They didn't see her hibab and allow her to stay. Rather, they didn't know about until she was leaving. Certainly they have a right to free speech, but from the article it looks more like they freaked out and assaulted her rather than simply voicing their opinions.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

All it means is that they can ban churches if they want to. Not that they have to.

I think they will not make the same mistake and pursue a legal fight that ends up in a disastrous referendum. Besides it doesn't make much sense to do something that is against the will of the neighbourhood when you want to recruit members for your faith.

[Narona]

Les femmes continuent d’assumer toutes les corvées

France Info - 3 décembre 2009 Repassage, courses, cuisine : le fait que les femmes continuent d’assumer la grande majorité des tâches ménagères au sein du couple n’est pas une nouveauté. Mais une étude de l’Ined montre que l’arrivée d’un enfant accentue encore ces inégalités entre conjoints…
Pas de quoi être fiers, messieurs.
Au sein des couples de 20-50 ans, 80% des femmes s’occupent du repassage et 70% de la cuisine. Et si les hommes daignent donner un petit coup de main, 50% des femmes assument également l’aspirateur et les courses, selon une enquête de l’Institut national d’études démographiques. Rien de neuf sous les tropiques donc, les femmes, même actives, réussissent toujours l’exploit que les hommes ne tentent pas de relever : boucler deux journées en une, le boulot et les corvées.

L’Ined a eu l’idée de réinterroger, trois ans plus tard, les couples qui attendaient un enfant. Résultat : loin de rétablir les équilibres, l’arrivée d’un bébé accentue les déséquilibres au sein du couple. Et ces déséquilibres sont encore plus criants au sein des couples qui avaient déjà un ou plusieurs enfants.
Selon les auteurs de cette étude, une naissance conduit à des "ajustements professionnels qui touchent principalement la femme" (temps partiels par exemple), laquelle aurait donc tendance à s’impliquer encore plus dans les tâches domestiques.

Les femmes continuent à prendre en charge la quasi-intégralité des corvées, analyse Arnaud Régnier-Loilier, l’auteur de cette enquête de l’Ined (3'30")


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les personnes interrogées ont à chaque fois été questionnées sur leur "satisfaction" par rapport à la répartition des tâches dans leur couple. Et les femmes les moins satisfaites appartiennent à des couples où elles assument presque toute l’organisation ménagère, selon l’Ined. Cette insatisfaction augmentant d’ailleurs avec le nombre d’enfants. En revanche, du côté des hommes, le nombre d’enfants n’a aucun effet sur le degré de satisfaction.

Conclusion de l’auteur de l’étude, un homme : "Malgré l’idéal d’égalité, la répartition des tâches au sein du couple reste fortement déséquilibrée".

To make it short, in France, the women are still the ones who do most of the Housework.

The INED did a national study about it.

Among the couples of people aged 20 to 80 years old, the women are at 80% the ones who do the ironing. They are 70% to do the cooking, and when the men help them a bit, they are still 50% to do the vaccum-cleaning and the shopping (for food).

As it is said in the article, the women are still the ones who can do what most men are unable to do (because they don't try that hard ), to work at their job, and to do the housework, in 24 hours.

The INED also mentions that when a baby is born, it creates even more unevenness.

You can listen to one of the person who participated to this study there (it aired on the radio) (it's in French) : http://www.france-info.com/france-so...391-9-12.html#

Now, one advice to all the men, the study also reported that the more you don't participate, the less your GF/Wife is satisfied of the couple (the study was apparently mainly talking about the allocation of the houseworks though). Think about it, and don't complain if you get dumped for being lazy

So, most French men fail and despite all the talks about equality, the allocation of the housework in couples is still widely unbalanced here in France.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

To make it short, in France, the women are still the ones who do most of the Housework.

The INED did a national study about it.

Among the couples of people aged 20 to 80 years old, the women are at 80% the one who do the ironing. They are 70% to do the cooking, and 50% to do the vaccum-cleaning and the shopping (for food).

As it is said in the article, the women are still the ones who can do what most men are unable to do (because they don't try that hard ), to work at their job, and to do the housework.

The INED also mention that when a baby is born, it creates even more unevenness.

You can listen to one of the person who participated to this study there (it aired on the radio) (it's in French) : http://www.france-info.com/france-so...391-9-12.html#

Now, one advice to all the men, the study also reported that the more you don't participate, the less your GF/Wife is happy in your couple. Think about it, and don't complain if you get dumped for being lazy

So, most French men fail

Sure, I'll remember that

One can see how men can be blamed for this if they ask their gf/wife to get a job in order to have more money, but you could say women are also partly to blame. Considering the values of modern society and the importance it places on work and making money, and how in the olden days such a task was placed on men because it was regarded as "difficult" compared to housework, a false belief at that, there are some women who want to prove they're capable of doing what men do, and want to crush the belief that women are weaker than men by doing what they do.

There was also an article on a newspaper around here as well that I caught a glimpse of about how women have also ended up becoming wage-slaves like men because of this determination to prove themselves to be equal with men. In addition to having a job, they also have to take care of the house and they end up having no time to themselves (while guys can go chill with their buds at a pub at night after work ), and on top of that they end up having little money for anything in the first place and have to work all the time to get what they really want.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Sure, I'll remember that

One can see how men can be blamed for this if they ask their gf/wife to get a job in order to have more money, but you could say women are also partly to blame. Considering the values of modern society and the importance it places on work and making money, and how in the olden days such a task was placed on men because it was regarded as "difficult" compared to housework, a false belief at that, there are some women who want to prove they're capable of doing what men do, and want to crush the belief that women are weaker than men by doing what they do.

There was also an article on a newspaper around here as well that I caught a glimpse of about how women have also ended up becoming wage-slaves like men because of this determination to prove themselves to be equal with men. In addition to having a job, they also have to take care of the house and they end up having no time to themselves (while guys can go chill with their buds at a pub at night after work ), and on top of that they end up having little money for anything in the first place and have to work all the time to get what they really want.

Some women can definitely be blamed. I'll not point what you talked about (that they want to prove something), but too many women just shut up and get more and more depressed (well, you could also say that some men are idiotic morons to not spot that), instead of attacking the problem at the roots. I mean, to say clearly to the guy that he's lazy and that it should change or bye bye. (but since the violence towards women in couples are also on the rise, we must take in account that some women are scared by their partners/ But about those who are not: no excuse)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Narona

To make it short, in France, the women are still the ones who do most of the Housework.

The INED did a national study about it.

Among the couples of people aged 20 to 80 years old, the women are at 80% the ones who do the ironing. They are 70% to do the cooking, and when the men help them a bit, they are still 50% to do the vaccum-cleaning and the shopping (for food).

As it is said in the article, the women are still the ones who can do what most men are unable to do (because they don't try that hard ), to work at their job, and to do the housework, in 24 hours.

The INED also mentions that when a baby is born, it creates even more unevenness.

You can listen to one of the person who participated to this study there (it aired on the radio) (it's in French) : http://www.france-info.com/france-so...391-9-12.html#

Now, one advice to all the men, the study also reported that the more you don't participate, the less your GF/Wife is satisfied of the couple (the study was apparently mainly talking about the allocation of the houseworks though). Think about it, and don't complain if you get dumped for being lazy

So, most French men fail and despite all the talks about equality, the allocation of the housework in couples is still widely unbalanced here in France.

I could go to France and make a difference then. I do more housework than any of my female classmates/friends.

Well maybe the French ladies love the attention their husbands gave them when they do the housework, i.e constantly being looked at. Maybe ogling would be a better term.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

Some women can definitely be blamed. I'll not point what you talked about (that they want to prove something), but too many women just shut up and get more and more depressed (well, you could also say that some men are idiotic morons to not spot that), instead of attacking the problem at the roots. I mean, to say clearly to the guy that he's lazy and that it should change or bye bye. (but since the violence towards women in couples are also on the rise, we must take in account that some women are scared by their partners/ But about those who are not: no excuse)

I can see how having to work on the job and the house on top of that can make a woman feel depressed in a relationship since there's too many things to do, but not quite how being depressed would cause them to go look for a job. Perhaps split away from the partner and then look for a job. As for the violence aspect, that's another story imho.