Remember the minarets?

bonkey · 05-05-2010 10:34pm #1

Some time ago, we had a good ol' ding-dong of a thread, discussing how the Swiss were or weren't completely out of line to ban minarets.

There were, at that point, two minarets in the country.

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.

There are, apparently, less then 100 people estimated to wear this in Switzerland.

The finest democracy on earth rolls on...

freyners · 05-05-2010 10:39pm

bonkey wrote:

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha

Burkha or burqa?? think there the same thing though??
and ya, plain ridiculous

bonkey · 05-05-2010 11:05pm

freyners wrote: »

Burkha or burqa??

Burqa. Typo on my part.

freyners · 05-05-2010 11:09pm

sorry mate, wasnt trying to pull ya on it, just confused on my part

back o/t
i think that this is a load of sh*te, and its a lose-lose situation now whichever way they do it,
if there is a referendum they trying to disallow religious freedom
if there isnt a referendum, there not standing up for womans rights

T-Square · 05-05-2010 11:13pm

bonkey wrote: »

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.

There are, apparently, less then 100 people estimated to wear this in Switzerland.

The finest democracy...

Its a political statement, which I support.
I wish we had it here.

Nodin · 05-05-2010 11:20pm

T-Square wrote: »

Its a political statement, which I support.
I wish we had it here.

Well, its actually a sectarian statement, and I thought we still had quite enough of that crap here.

wes · 05-05-2010 11:31pm

I am honestly confused how this can be seen as supporting freedom for anyone. Telling Women what to wear is the kind of crap the West complains about the Taliban and Saudi Arabia doing, and some Western countries seem to want to emulate, the worst aspect of those nutters.

anymore · 05-05-2010 11:45pm

bonkey wrote: »

Some time ago, we had a good ol' ding-dong of a thread, discussing how the Swiss were or weren't completely out of line to ban minarets.

There were, at that point, two minarets in the country.

In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.

There are, apparently, less then 100 people estimated to wear this in Switzerland.

The finest democracy on earth rolls on...

Perhaps they feel that their cultural values are worth protecting.

T-Square · 05-05-2010 11:54pm

Nodin wrote: »

Well, its actually a sectarian statement, and I thought we still had quite enough of that crap here.

You are confused, next!

dlofnep · 05-05-2010 11:57pm

I wonder if nuns are banned from wearing... nun stuff.

anymore · 06-05-2010 12:03am

dlofnep wrote: »

I wonder if nuns are banned from wearing... nun stuff.

Nuns are a very good example of a traditional group who have dramatically adjusted the type of clothes they wear and modernised; in many cases Nuns are weaingr clothing which is almost indistinguishable from non - religous.

Nodin · 06-05-2010 12:07am

anymore wrote: »

Perhaps they feel that their cultural values are worth protecting.

Or perhaps they've a long history of xenophobia....
http://books.google.ie/books?id=Z2XB8cJWC80C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=verjudung+switzerland&source=bl&ots=XuuvWxT6bH&sig=NkMsGAaShvZTe1ZLE3y-PNsEFU0&hl=en&ei=zfnhS5_gLJTu0wS0k-GaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=verjudung%20switzerland&f=false

Nodin · 06-05-2010 12:09am

T-Square wrote: »

You are confused, next!

Islam is a religion. Therefore discriminating against it is sectarian. We have had sectarianism for centuries in this country, and therefore have quite enough to sort out without importing more.

dlofnep · 06-05-2010 12:17am

anymore wrote: »

Nuns are a very good example of a traditional group who have dramatically adjusted the type of clothes they wear and modernised; in many cases Nuns are weaingr clothing which is almost indistinguishable from non - religous.

No they are not. Nuns are still wearing the same clothes that they wore 50 years ago. My mother works for Nuns as a receptionist. Lovely old ladies that they are - but there is really hardly any difference between the clothing that they wear and a burqa.

ninty9er · 06-05-2010 12:18am

This isn't an easily decided argument, but banning the burqa would preclude anyone from wearing one, not just a Muslim. I know that's strange arguing, but it's a law that will not apply to Muslims only, but will, in the main, affect Muslim women only.

I'd find it very unnerving not to be able to see someone's face if I'm having an arm's length conversation with them.

People are entitled to their freedoms, but Swiss democracy is one of the most democratic kinds.

For example, I believe (I may be wrong) it is not allowable in certain countries to have a crucifix in public places, the bruqa has a similar religious significance.

This is not xenophobic, if however the Swiss were to decide people were not permitted to be Muslim or practice Islam, then that would be xenophobic.

There's 2 sides to this particular coin though, I can see both, but personally I'd vote in favour of a ban.

ninty9er · 06-05-2010 12:20am

dlofnep wrote: »

No they are not. Nuns are still wearing the same clothes that they wore 50 years ago. My mother works for Nuns as a receptionist. Lovely old ladies that they are - but there is really hardly any difference between the clothing that they wear and a burqa.

I have interaction with a nun and a preist on a daily basis for work. Neither of them are distinguishable as such. I've seen nuns dressed like that, but it's not common.

wes · 06-05-2010 12:31am

ninty9er wrote: »

This isn't an easily decided argument, but banning the burqa would preclude anyone from wearing one, not just a Muslim. I know that's strange arguing, but it's a law that will not apply to Muslims only, but will, in the main, affect Muslim women only.

You could argue that a ban on Homosexual activities doesn't discriminate against Gay people, if it was applied to people of all sexual orientations. A similar argument is also offered against Gay marriage, that it doesn't discriminate as a straight person can't marry the same sex. It is of course a bull**** cop out. the law is aimed at Muslims in this instance, and pretend otherwise is a ridiculous cop out, no different than the cop out against Gay marriage.

ninty9er wrote: »

I'd find it very unnerving not to be able to see someone's face if I'm having an arm's length conversation with them.

Hardly a basis for a ban. If we were to ban things on such a basis, things would just get silly.

ninty9er wrote: »

People are entitled to their freedoms, but Swiss democracy is one of the most democratic kinds.

Well, clearly a majority of the electorate in Switzerland don't think that way. After-all, no one has the freedom to build an minarets there.

ninty9er wrote: »

For example, I believe (I may be wrong) it is not allowable in certain countries to have a crucifix in public places, the bruqa has a similar religious significance.

I think the only place, is Saudi Arabia, and I think emulating them in general is a bad idea. Personally, i wouldn't want to keep such company, but it seems many are happy to do so.

ninty9er wrote: »

This is not xenophobic, if however the Swiss were to decide people were not permitted to be Muslim or practice Islam, then that would be xenophobic.

Its a law about protecting there culture from foreign influences, and all that bollox. So its very much Xenophobic.

dlofnep · 06-05-2010 12:32am

ninty9er wrote: »

I have interaction with a nun and a preist on a daily basis for work. Neither of them are distinguishable as such. I've seen nuns dressed like that, but it's not common.

I'm not sure about that!

It's moot either way - My point is that, there was never an issue with the way Nuns dressed in the past (which is obviously to cover up). So why should there be one now with Muslims?

ninty9er · 06-05-2010 12:40am

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not sure about that!

It's moot either way - My point is that, there was never an issue with the way Nuns dressed in the past (which is obviously to cover up). So why should there be one now with Muslims?

The Swiss, I believe, are being proactive BEFORE it becomes an issue...many would welcome such politics in most countries.

dlofnep · 06-05-2010 12:52am

ninty9er wrote: »

The Swiss, I believe, are being proactive BEFORE it becomes an issue...many would welcome such politics in most countries.

Ah yes - The Modh Coinniollach of politics. Banning stuff arbitrarily on the basis of something that might happen.

AlekSmart · 06-05-2010 1:19am

Ah yes - The Modh Coinniollach of politics. Banning stuff arbitrarily on the basis of something that might happen.

Yup...good for the Switzers..probably explains why they ain`t top of the queue for a German/IMF bailout....:)

RayM · 06-05-2010 1:49am

ninty9er wrote: »

The Swiss, I believe, are being proactive BEFORE it becomes an issue...many would welcome such politics in most countries.

They're not being proactive. They're seeking to take something that is far from being an endemic problem (or even a tiny, trifling iota of a minor issue), and using it as a conduit through which to stick two great big fingers up at their Muslim population. Just like they did with the minarets.

Manic Moran · 06-05-2010 2:02am

wes wrote: »

Its a law about protecting there culture from foreign influences, and all that bollox. So its very much Xenophobic.

Out of interest, I note that two predominantly muslim countries, Turkey and Tunisia, also bar wearing burkas in government buildings, schools, and universities. (And, I believe, they even go as far as to ban hijabs, Turkey draws the line at allowing the basortusu, a sort of loose headscarf, in university).

Would you say that these are also for xenophobic reasons?

NTM

nachoman · 06-05-2010 2:21am

I think they look very stylish, very good in the winter I'd say, like a scarf and a hat rolled into one.

Executive Steve · 06-05-2010 2:56am

nachoman wrote: »

I think they look very stylish, very good in the winter I'd say, like a scarf and a hat rolled into one.

You're thinking of the Hajib, which can and does indeed look very stylish and which i personally have no problem with at all, with the Niqaab (which covers the face) and the Burqha (which is literally a cloth with a few pinholes in it)

^ Hijab

^ Niqaab

^ Burqha
There are big differences between the extents of the various bans being proposed in the various countries and I personally feel there are also degrees of difference in acceptability involved as to which I am comfortable with, so please lets all be absolutely clear that we're all referring to the same garment here in case we get our wires crossed

Peanut · 06-05-2010 3:06am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, I note that two predominantly muslim countries, Turkey and Tunisia, also bar wearing burkas in government buildings, schools, and universities. (And, I believe, they even go as far as to ban hijabs, Turkey draws the line at allowing the basortusu, a sort of loose headscarf, in university).

Would you say that these are also for xenophobic reasons?

NTM

I think in the case of Turkey at least, there was a sort of xenophobic element behind this during the foundation of the state, in terms of Ataturk wanting to reduce what he considered the retrograde Arabic influences in Turkish society at the time.

In present day Turkey the headscarf (hijab) ban is one of the most contentious social issues. Supporters of the ban fear that moves to ease it will give too much power to hard-line Islamists. On a practical level, secularists don't want to encourage a situation where they may be forced by social/peer pressure to adopt the headscarf if a majority in their workplace or university are wearing them.

On the other hand, this leads to fantastically absurd workarounds such as women in certain jobs wearing a wig, over a scarf, which itself is over their hair.

Euro_Kraut · 06-05-2010 3:21am

I am generally uncomfortable with the Govt deciding what people can or cannot wear. I find people who wear sunglasses indoors to be very off putting. However I am not sure there should be a ban on that.

I am also wary of the motives of the party that are proposing this ban. They are the SVP and are responsible for these memorable poster among others:

SVP%20poster.jpg

I am not convinced that the first vote on Minert bans was promoted out of respect for Swiss architecture laws and planning regulations. Similarly, I am not convinced that this is motivated out of concern for women liberty and the off chance the the burqua will be used a disguise by criminals. I think the motives are more likely racial rabble rousing for political gain.

irishconvert · 06-05-2010 7:47am

I was speaking to a Swiss Muslim (a convert) and he told me that since the ban on minerats that Muslims have become more "religious". The mosques are full for all 5 daily prayers now and not just friday prayers. At least something good is coming out of the Swiss' bigotry. Any attacks on Muslims will only make them stronger :-)

Flamed Diving · 06-05-2010 9:35am

irishconvert wrote: »

I was speaking to a Swiss Muslim (a convert) and he told me that since the ban on minerats that Muslims have become more "religious". The mosques are full for all 5 daily prayers now and not just friday prayers. At least something good is coming out of the Swiss' bigotry. Any attacks on Muslims will only make them stronger :-)

...and more... fundamentally-y...

Nodin · 06-05-2010 9:42am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

...and more... fundamentally-y...

More than likely. Persecuting people for being catholic didn't work here. Trying to force the people to become more secular in Iran made them more religous. Theres a clear pattern that people seem to be willfully ignoring.

BlaasForRafa · 06-05-2010 9:49am

Nodin wrote: »

More than likely. Persecuting people for being catholic didn't work here. Trying to force the people to become more secular in Iran made them more religous. Theres a clear pattern that people seem to be willfully ignoring.

Why should secular people suffer for the irrational superstitions of religious people. Islam and christianity are as deserving of as much respect as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Flamed Diving · 06-05-2010 9:56am

Nodin wrote: »

More than likely. Persecuting people for being catholic didn't work here. Trying to force the people to become more secular in Iran made them more religous. Theres a clear pattern that people seem to be willfully ignoring.

And now the religious fundamentalism in that country is creating a generation who have distaste for such regimes. Round and round we go.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why should secular people suffer for the irrational superstitions of religious people. Islam and christianity are as deserving of as much respect as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Exactly. Islam is no better than belief in the FSM. Or belief in... my personal deity which is a giant blob of green paint in space. This deity commands me to walk around naked in public, but unfortunately I am persecuted by our nations laws. If I am to be persecuted for my extreme "dress code", why do people get away with the exact opposite of my desired actions? Are their personal beliefs higher than mine? Why? Just let us all wear what we want!

Nodin · 06-05-2010 9:58am

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why should secular people suffer for the irrational superstitions of religious people. Islam and christianity are as deserving of as much respect as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm not suffering......I despised the sight of women in platform shoes, which were "in" for a while. Did it kill me? No. Did I want them banned? No. If somebodys clothing (or lack thereof) makes you "suffer", then I'd suggest the problem lies with you and not them. People should be free to do much as they please with a minimum amount of interference from others. That covers everything from smoking grass to going off to pray to their version of the big sky fairy.

wes · 06-05-2010 10:16am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you say that these are also for xenophobic reasons?

Nope, in that case, it has more to do with secularism.

I would also like to point out that the people of Tunisia, have very little say in there governments running, as it is a police state.

In the case of Turkey, the government tried to change the law regarding the Hijab (it was an election promise), but the Supreme court, put the kibosh on that.

AlekSmart · 06-05-2010 11:04am

It`s great gas really....I`m reminded of the Skibbereen Eagle`s stern warning to Tsar Nicholas of Russia........"We`re watchin ye !!"

For a country which has made indecision,obfuscation and criminal negligence a National Pastime,Ireland (Or more particularly it`s citizenry) has little "right" to lecture the Swiss on anything.

I`d recommend that since there`s nothing here to see,we`re moved right along and put to cleaning up our countryside and attempting to stop serial savages from smashing up bus-shelters and vomiting on one`s shoes ! :rolleyes:

anymore · 06-05-2010 11:14am

AlekSmart wrote: »

It`s great gas really....I`m reminded of the Skibbereen Eagle`s stern warning to Tsar Nicholas of Russia........"We`re watchin ye !!"

For a country which has made indecision,obfuscation and criminal negligence a National Pastime,Ireland (Or more particularly it`s citizenry) has little "right" to lecture the Swiss on anything.

I`d recommend that since there`s nothing here to see,we`re moved right along and put to cleaning up our countryside and attempting to stop serial savages from smashing up bus-shelters and vomiting on one`s shoes ! :rolleyes:

Very good post. The people of switzerland are to be written off as rabble rousers and biots etc for exercising thier democratic rights to protect thier own culture - how wonderfully liberal of Switzerland's critics. I cant think of the last time swwitzerland invaded anyone or engaged in acts of terrorism, so i suggest we leave the good citizens of Switzerland to make their own minds up.
In any event is there more to be added to the subject than was covered in the 'ban the Burqua thread ?

bonkey · 06-05-2010 11:25am

anymore wrote: »

Very good post. The people of switzerland are to be written off as rabble rousers and biots etc for exercising thier democratic rights to protect thier own culture - how wonderfully liberal of Switzerland's critics.

There isn't even the slightest semblance of a hint in the debate here (i.e. Switzerland) thus far that the issue is about protecting Swiss culture.

I'm not sure where you get the idea from that this is what is trying to be accomplished.

In any event is there more to be added to the subject than was covered in the 'ban the Burqua thread ?

I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.

Maybe I'm mis-remembering...but if that was the case, then clearly that line of reasoning / defence was wrong.

Anyway...I just thought some people might be interested, given the interest at the time in the minaret referendum.

prinz · 06-05-2010 11:28am

dlofnep wrote: »

It's moot either way - My point is that, there was never an issue with the way Nuns dressed in the past (which is obviously to cover up). So why should there be one now with Muslims?

When was the last time you saw a nun covering her face in public?

No one is banning headscarves or other clothing items that leave the full face visible.

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah yes - The Modh Coinniollach of politics. Banning stuff arbitrarily on the basis of something that might happen.

If it's good enough for those against the law in Belgium to be against it based on what might happen then I don't see why anyone else should worry about it.

i.e. that proposed law bans anyone from wearing clothing preventing someone from being indentified etc. Of course in the future we all know it is merely going to be used to persecute Muslims via our crystal balls...

anymore · 06-05-2010 11:32am

bonkey wrote: »

There isn't even the slightest semblance of a hint in the debate here (i.e. Switzerland) thus far that the issue is about protecting Swiss culture.

I'm not sure where you get the idea from that this is what is trying to be accomplished.

I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.

Maybe I'm mis-remembering...but if that was the case, then clearly that line of reasoning / defence was wrong.

Anyway...I just thought some people might be interested, given the interest at the time in the minaret referendum.

Resisting the importation of such obivousily foreign religous/cultural ( and all the bagges that comes along with them) practices would seem to be fit into the category of protecting ones culture. I suppose it is a matter of perspective.
i believe one of the belgian Parliament commottees also has considered such a prohibition.

prinz · 06-05-2010 11:33am

bonkey wrote: »

I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.

The question really is are there laws in Switzerland against covering your face in any manner in public without a justifiable reason?

bonkey · 06-05-2010 12:00pm

anymore wrote: »

Resisting the importation of such obivousily foreign religous/cultural ( and all the bagges that comes along with them) practices would seem to be fit into the category of protecting ones culture. I suppose it is a matter of perspective.

As I pointed out in the OP, there isn't any significant numbers. I would add that there is no (reported) indication that it is on the rise, either.

I additionally pointed out that no-one, including the people promoting the issue, are casting it about being about protecting Swiss culture from anything.

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Taking a move which is discriminatory by its nature and almost-certainly seen as antagonistic, for no direct gain (other than to be discriminatory, and to cause antagonism, if you see those as gains), in order to "protect" against something which isn't a problem and may never become one seems, to me at least, to be a case of losing perspective.

Even if your argument had merit, why only the burqa? Why not the niqab? Why only items of clothing, if its the religious culture in its entirety that culture needs to be protected from? Where should the line be drawn? Where is it reasonable to draw the line?

Remember....its not about things that are problems...its about things that might be problems. It would seem that the only logical conclusion to that line of reasoning is to kick all foreigners out entirely. Forget even the nations that are close neighbours...if anything their cultural influences are more insidious then any others.

For me, that entire argument reduces itself to absurdity, unless some arbitrary line is drawn which says "this cultural stuff is fine, and that cultural stuff isn't", and even then you still end up needing to explain why its a move taken against only one item of clothing if the logic is protection against some wide range of "foreign" stuff.

bonkey · 06-05-2010 12:01pm

prinz wrote: »

The question really is are there laws in Switzerland against covering your face in any manner in public without a justifiable reason?

How is that really the question? An answer in either the affirmative or the negative doesn't shed any light on the proposed referendum.

prinz · 06-05-2010 12:13pm

bonkey wrote: »

How is that really the question? An answer in either the affirmative or the negative doesn't shed any light on the proposed referendum.

Actually it does. If for instance there already is a law banning the wearing of clothing which prevents identification without justifiable cause it would shed a lot of light on the banning of a burqa..it raises questions..

In the case that there is a law already covering this area then it raises the questions (a) why is there a need for a new law relating to burqas? (b) if there is such a law why has it not been applied to burqas before now? (c) if burqas are for some reason exempt from such a law before now - why? (d) have others been fined/prosecuted/jailed under such a law? (e) if there isn't such a law would the new referendum refer specifically to burqas or would it be applicable to anyone wearing something to make identification difficult.

The answers to these questions would enable me to make a more informed judgement on the referendum tbh. Unlike some other people I like to take in the whole picture, rather than jumping on a sensationalist headline in an effort to remind myself how open minded and great I am.

Aren't Swiss tech firms to the forefront of developing facial recognition devices and software? Aren't these already deployed in some places in Switzerland?

Sleepy · 06-05-2010 12:15pm

I'm all for this though I'd support an outright ban on religion.

Permabear · 06-05-2010 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 06-05-2010 12:27pm

This post has been deleted.

bonkey · 06-05-2010 12:54pm

prinz wrote: »

..it raises questions..

Exactly my point...it raises questions. Its hardly the "real" question if the answer (either in the affirmative or negative) only serves to raise more questions. It doesn't resolve anything in and of itself.

Aren't Swiss tech firms to the forefront of developing facial recognition devices and software? Aren't these already deployed in some places in Switzerland?

This sounds suspiciously rhetorical.

Perhaps you could clarify what it is you are suggesting before I try responding.

prinz · 06-05-2010 1:01pm

bonkey wrote: »

Exactly my point...it raises questions. Its hardly the "real" question if the answer (either in the affirmative or negative) only serves to raise more questions. It doesn't resolve anything in and of itself.

Fine. Let's go back to making up our minds without the relevant facts etc. Rabble rabble pitchfork rabble. Apparently it's irrelevant if there is a law against covering your face in public when we discuss a law against covering your face in public.

bonkey wrote: »

This sounds suspiciously rhetorical.
Perhaps you could clarify what it is you are suggesting before I try responding.

Bit pointless spending money installing facial recognition systems without laws regarding the covering of faces in public. And yes I realise in most applications it has been on a voluntary ID basis so far, but they have been deployed on a largescale basis before.

bonkey · 06-05-2010 1:55pm

prinz wrote: »

Fine. Let's go back to making up our minds without the relevant facts etc. Rabble rabble pitchfork rabble. Apparently it's irrelevant if there is a law against covering your face in public when we discuss a law against covering your face in public.

Now you're just strawmanning.

I never suggested it was irrelevant, nor that the alternative was some sort of "rabble-rousing".

I merely disagreed with the notion that this was some some sort of key question, which cut to the heart of the matter. Its not, because no matter what way it is answered, it leaves us no closer to understanding he reasons for the proposals. The questions it raises are questions that were already raised....ultimately the question is "why do people think this is a good idea", and your allegedly-key question doesn't help answer that.

Bit pointless spending money installing facial recognition systems without laws regarding the covering of faces in public. And yes I realise in most applications it has been on a voluntary ID basis so far, but they have been deployed on a largescale basis before.

Such an argument would have merit if the following assumptions were true:

1) We were discussing proposals regarding the covering faces in public, rather than a proposal dealing with one specific face covering.
2) We were discussing a specific face covering which is highly prevalent and/or where we had reason to believe that there was a high risk-factor
3) Facial recognition systems were at a point where they were supposed to offer 100% recognition, and could not be fooled by relatively simple methods, but only by concealing most of the face
4) Facial recognition systems were intended to work alone, rather then as an augmentation for human-based security systems.

All four of these assumptions are false, so the argument would appear to have no relevance or merit. I'm open to correction, of course.

You may be implying that if these laws you asked about existed, and if these facial systems were rolled out to an extent that they're not, and if it was no longer voluntary, and if any number of other conditions were true, then this could be a reason....but now we're back to "whatiffery", and I somehow suspect that if you find that any of the necessary conditions aren't true, you won't suddenly decide that its a bad, unjustified move.

Its almost as though you support it, but are still looking for a good reason to offer others.

prinz · 06-05-2010 2:13pm

bonkey wrote: »

Now you're just strawmanning.
I never suggested it was irrelevant, nor that the alternative was some sort of "rabble-rousing".

That's exactly what it is. If we condemn a law banning burkas in public surely to get the full picture we should be aware of laws banning any clothing preventing identification. Personally it would send me one way or the other on the burka referendum.

bonkey wrote: »

I merely disagreed with the notion that this was some some sort of key question, which cut to the heart of the matter. Its not, because no matter what way it is answered, it leaves us no closer to understanding he reasons for the proposals.

IMO it does. If for instance there is a law against me shielding my face with a scarf and hood in public for no particular reason I would be less than impressed if my neighbour was freely entitled to do likewise with a burka. If there is such a law it should be enforced. If there is such a law and burkas are exempt I want to know on what grounds. With this knowledge I could either be against the referendum or back it. I am not going to go against it solely on the basis that I see Burka and Ban and immediately go down the prejudiced bigots route.

bonkey wrote: »

The questions it raises are questions that were already raised....ultimately the question is "why do people think this is a good idea", and your allegedly-key question doesn't help answer that.

If there is such a law and it has not been enforced then personally I think it is a good idea to legislate to cover burkas, it would be a case of closing a loophole.

bonkey wrote: »

Such an argument would have merit if the following assumptions were true:
1) We were discussing proposals regarding the covering faces in public, rather than a proposal dealing with one specific face covering..

Which brings me back to my original question re all other types of face covering. If all other types are already legislated for then it seems logical to propose legislation to deal with the one that isn't.

bonkey wrote: »

2) We were discussing a specific face covering which is highly prevalent and/or where we had reason to believe that there was a high risk-factor...

Matter of opinion.

bonkey wrote: »

3) Facial recognition systems were at a point where they were supposed to offer 100% recognition, and could not be fooled by relatively simple methods, but only by concealing most of the face...

They are getting to that point. I think it was at the last Super Bowl that the crowds in attendance were scanned and 19 people with outstanding arrest warrants were identified. They are also in use in international airports.. Frankfurt IIRC.

bonkey wrote: »

4) Facial recognition systems were intended to work alone, rather then as an augmentation for human-based security systems.

When burka wearers (or more correctly their husbands) refuse to cooperate with human based security systems where to then? How far must we go to accomodate be it a balaclava or a burka wearer?

prinz · 06-05-2010 2:22pm

bonkey wrote: »

I somehow suspect that if you find that any of the necessary conditions aren't true, you won't suddenly decide that its a bad, unjustified move..

Wrong. I see no valid reason to ban burkas if there is no legislation to prohibit or restrict any other type of disguising one's appearance without justified cause. The law should cover everyone or none tbh, which works both ways if such a law exists already - why doesn't it apply to burkas, and if this new ban is imposed I would be against it if it legislated for burkas and nothing else because then you'd have a case about certain people being singled out ( see proposed Belgian legislation ).

Remember the minarets?

Comments