Burka ban

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 12:37PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Chad Senegal and Cameroon. Just three countries who have banned the Burqa for security reasons and these are countries that are predominantly Muslim countries

So why would a non Muslim country even think twice about it??

smacl · 18-08-2016 12:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

This is an interesting article on the topic of the burka. Quite well informed in my view.

Quite similar in content to the writing of Fadela Amara, which was what largely swayed me in favour of the burqa ban, insofar as the burqa is documented as regularly being used as a tool of oppression (even in Europe). So while the ban is an incursion on rights of expression for some women, it is removing a tool of oppression used against on others, thus on balance a good thing.

Delirium · 18-08-2016 12:50PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

Nope but terrorists (who are not just once off suicide bombers) do cover their faces

What about the attack in Tunisia that you mentioned? The terrorist was disguised as a tourist and secreted the machine gun inside a beach umbrella.

Does this mean you don't consider him a terrorist due to the lack of a face mask?

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 01:02PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

What about the attack in Tunisia that you mentioned? The terrorist was disguised as a tourist and secreted the machine gun inside a beach umbrella.

Does this mean you don't consider him a terrorist due to the lack of a face mask?

It is well documented that those guys where willing to die that day. They went there with the purpose of killing as many as possible with the mindset that they would probably be killed

Qs · 18-08-2016 01:12PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

Are you insane?

That's exactly how society works!

We make rules and people follow them

OK just a fast lesson on politics

There is right wing and left wing

There is very rarely someone who is just either. You can't have someone like that or you end up with a tatcher, Hitler, Stalin, bush type character.

You instead get people who who be right sided left wing or left sided right wing

These would be people for example that are for the people but understand that business comes first or vice versa

Having just a one sided view blinds you from having an objective opinion.

That bodes for all of life

I don't think you understand what being right wing or left wing is. You certainly don't understand what liberal is.

Delirium · 18-08-2016 01:20PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

It is well documented that those guys where willing to die that day. They went there with the purpose of killing as many as possible with the mindset that they would probably be killed

That doesn't answer my question.

Is a face mask required to be a terrorist (excluding suicide bombers as per your original contention) ?

18-08-2016 01:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

What about the attack in Tunisia that you mentioned? The terrorist was disguised as a tourist and secreted the machine gun inside a beach umbrella.

Does this mean you don't consider him a terrorist due to the lack of a face mask?

Ban tourists and beach umbrellas

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 01:26PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

Nope but terrorists (who are not just once off suicide bombers) do cover their faces

Delirium wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Is a face mask required to be a terrorist (excluding suicide bombers as per your original contention) ?

I did answer your question and alluded to the fact that these terrorists where suicidal................ just because they did not blow themselves up doesnt mean they where not suicidal terrorists

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 01:34PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Ban tourists and beach umbrellas

See now your being ridiculous

I'm talking about something that is actually happening

I am talking about countries that have more than 90% of their population that are Muslim and they ban full face Burkas

But you have a problem with a western country banning burkas even though our Muslim population is about 1%

While your human rights campaign may allow 1% of the country to be able to wear burkas, it puts the 99% at risk.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Policy is built on the needs and concerns of the majority. If I wanted my human rights over there would I be listened to? So whats the difference. I am not exactly stripping a Muslim am I? I am, merely saying that full face Burkas are a bad idea the very same as wearing a motorbike helmet in a bank.

You are scared to answer my question as to why you cant wear concealing clothing in a government building because ITS THE LAW and its a security concern. This should be applied everywhere.

Now I dont have an actual issue with it and dont care really if it never happened. But unlike you I can see the benefits of it

Delirium · 18-08-2016 01:35PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

I did answer your question and alluded to the fact that these terrorists where suicidal................ just because they did not blow themselves up doesnt mean they where not suicidal terrorists

But that's not what you claimed earlier:

Nope but terrorists (who are not just once off suicide bombers) do cover their faces

So it would seem that while banning some face coverings may be somewhat helpful to authorities, it doesn't guarantee the absence of terror attacks.

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 01:43PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Is a face mask required to be a terrorist (excluding suicide bombers as per your original contention) ?

He never said that. Only that terrorists do cover their face. They don't HAVE to, but it is obviously an advantage to disguise your identity if you DON'T want to be caught. Those that DO want to be caught, or suicide bombers, are naturally not concerned because anonymity is not desired.

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 01:45PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

So it would seem that while banning some face coverings may be somewhat helpful to authorities, it doesn't guarantee the absence of terror attacks.

You are playing on the same tactics as the NRA advocates in the states for lesser or no restrictions on gun ownership.
Your argument is essentially "unless it completely stops terrorism, don't bother doing it. Reducing it is worthless".

18-08-2016 01:45PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

See now your being ridiculous

It is the exact same logic. Exactly the same. A tiny tiny tiny subset of those that cover their faces commit terrorism using this coverage. You wish to ban it.
A tiny tiny tiny tiny subset of those that use beach umbrellas commit terrorism using it. Why not also ban beach umbrellas?

Mr.H wrote: »

I'm talking about something that is actually happening

It did happen

Terrorists used beach umbrellas to hide their activities.

Mr.H wrote: »

I am talking about countries that have more than 90% of their population that are Muslim and they ban full face Burkas
But you have a problem with a western country banning burkas even though our Muslim population is about 1%
While your human rights campaign may allow 1% of the country to be able to wear burkas, it puts the 99% at risk.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Policy is built on the needs and concerns of the majority. If I wanted my human rights over there would I be listened to? So whats the difference. I am not exactly stripping a Muslim am I? I am, merely saying that full face Burkas are a bad idea the very same as wearing a motorbike helmet in a bank.
You are scared to answer my question as to why you cant wear concealing clothing in a government building because ITS THE LAW and its a security concern. This should be applied everywhere.

Banks, and any private property whatsoever are entitled to refuse admission based on an enormously long list of issues, the issues that they are not entitled to refuse admission on are small enough to be included in legislation (Gender, Civil status, Family status ,Sexual orientation, Religion, Age (does not apply to a person under 16), Disability, Race, Membership of the Traveller community)

I fully support the idea that if Motorcyclists are required to remove their helmets in a bank so that they might be recognisable, that a woman would also be required to reveal her face under the exact same logic.

Motorcycle helmets are not banned in public though - so why is that exact same logic not being applied to the Burka?

Mr.H wrote: »

Now I dont have an actual issue with it and dont care really if it never happened. But unlike you I can see the benefits of it

Unlike you I value personal freedoms and hold them to be an incredibly important part of a progressive, tolerant and inclusive society. I don't deem myself authoritative enough to tell other people how they should live their own lives, or express themselves, or do pretty much anything. The social contract
contains nothing about the dresscode that people 'ought to' adhere to other than to wear something as far as I am aware.

The societies that have banned garments, are they models of societies you would aspire to have?

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 01:51PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

But that's not what you claimed earlier:

So it would seem that while banning some face coverings may be somewhat helpful to authorities, it doesn't guarantee the absence of terror attacks.

You realise I copied that exact post in my last reply to you!!

I said "once off suicide bombers"

In my response to you I explained that they were suicidal terrorists so regardless of them blowing themselves up they had the same mission as a suicide bomber. Your either ignorant or blind to what I am saying.

18-08-2016 01:54PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Are there many repeat suicide bombers?

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 01:57PM

I'm religious and support the ban

practice makes perfect.

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 01:58PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Banks, and any private property whatsoever are entitled to refuse admission based on an enormously long list of issues, the issues that they are not entitled to refuse admission on are small enough to be included in legislation (Gender, Civil status, Family status ,Sexual orientation, Religion, Age (does not apply to a person under 16), Disability, Race, Membership of the Traveller community)

Except you do have to take off anything covering your face regardless of religion.

I am not trying to discriminate. I see no difference between the burka, Helmet or hoodie. If it is used to hide your face then it should be looked at with the same danger.

Most crimes are committed by people who try to conceal their identity.

Deleted User wrote: »

I fully support the idea that if Motorcyclists are required to remove their helmets in a bank so that they might be recognisable, that a woman would also be required to reveal her face under the exact same logic.

Motorcycle helmets are not banned in public though - so why is that exact same logic not being applied to the Burka?

Except you are asked to remove them when entering ANY shop or business. In my view if your not driving, take the dam thing off.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlike you I value personal freedoms and hold them to be an incredibly important part of a progressive, tolerant and inclusive society. I don't deem myself authoritative enough to tell other people how they should live their own lives, or express themselves, or do pretty much anything. The social contract
contains nothing about the dresscode that people 'ought to' adhere to other than to wear something as far as I am aware.

The societies that have banned garments, are they models of societies you would aspire to have?

Except when those freedoms of 1% impact the wider public 99%

Do you think it is offensive if we walk around naked? certain people in society deem it so where others think its natural.

The larger society tells us it is wrong therefore we accept that it is regardless of the 1% who would prefer to wear nothing

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 01:58PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Motorcycle helmets are not banned in public though - so why is that exact same logic not being applied to the Burka?

because motorcyclists are not terrorists!

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 01:59PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Motorcycle helmets are not banned in public though - so why is that exact same logic not being applied to the Burka?

Because the reasons people wear the helmet is not the same as wearing the burka. Taking off a helmet is a momentary annoyance (or relief) in that circumstance while it causes moral outrage and risk to the woman to be seen doing it. This is why muslims were saying how they would be forced to stay at home if the burka was banned, because any compromise is abhorrent to the advocates of the burka, due to the pressure to wear it.
Also removing a helmet is very different than dismantling a burka. Its not a friggin hat. You don't whip it off and on. It is a complicated piece of clothing.

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 01:59PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

Except you are asked to remove them when entering ANY shop or business.

what about motorbike shops?

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 02:00PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there many repeat suicide bombers?

Actually funnily enough (not actually funny) there have been "suicide bombers" who have survived the bomb. Doubt they would be in good enough knick to try it again though.

But yea its easier to try to joke when you have no argument:rolleyes:

Delirium · 18-08-2016 02:00PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

He never said that. Only that terrorists do cover their face. They don't HAVE to, but it is obviously an advantage to disguise your identity if you DON'T want to be caught. Those that DO want to be caught, or suicide bombers, are naturally not concerned because anonymity is not desired.

Fair enough, I'll accept I misread what the poster was saying and that the poster wasn't stating that face mask is a requirement to be a terrorist.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You are playing on the same tactics as the NRA advocates in the states for lesser or no restrictions on gun ownership.
Your argument is essentially "unless it completely stops terrorism, don't bother doing it. Reducing it is worthless".

I just don't understand how banning the burka does anything to stop terrorism. Should we also ban baseball caps and sunglasses as they can be used to conceal a person identity?

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 02:01PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there many repeat suicide bombers?

Sometimes yes. They are not very bright. Sometimes it does not go off.

Mr.H · 18-08-2016 02:01PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

what about motorbike shops?

YES you are asked to remove your helmet!!

18-08-2016 02:06PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mr.H wrote: »

Except you do have to take off anything covering your face regardless of religion.

I am not trying to discriminate. I see no difference between the burka, Helmet or hoodie. If it is used to hide your face then it should be looked at with the same danger.

So are we banning all hoodies, motorcycle helmets, gas masks, halloween fancy dress and Burkas from all public places?

Ban anything and everything that can be worn to conceal the face?

Arrest anyone who accidentally covers their face?

Mr.H wrote: »

Most crimes are committed by people who try to conceal their identity.

citation needed - I would imagine this is almost totally incorrect.

Mr.H wrote: »

Except you are asked to remove them when entering ANY shop or business. In my view if your not driving, take the dam thing off.

If a Muslim woman is praying, is she entitled to wear her Burka under your authoritarian regime? Is it only when it's not being worn 'for the use you allow' that it is an issue?

Mr.H wrote: »

Except when those freedoms of 1% impact the wider public 99%

How do they?

Mr.H wrote: »

Do you think it is offensive if we walk around naked? certain people in society deem it so where others think its natural.

I see nothing wrong with nudity to be honest. We were all born naked. I wear clothes as a societal norm. I certainly would not take offence if anyone else wished to walk around naked.

Mr.H wrote: »

The larger society tells us it is wrong therefore we accept that it is regardless of the 1% who would prefer to wear nothing

Just as I would not take offence if someone wanted to walk around fully clothed/covered.

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 02:07PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Delirium wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll accept I misread what the poster was saying and that the poster wasn't stating that face mask is a requirement to be a terrorist.

I just don't understand how banning the burka does anything to stop terrorism. Should we also ban baseball caps and sunglasses as they can be used to conceal a person identity?

Again with the argument from the NRA. If someone asks you to remove your cap or glasses, you do, without any effort or stigma. Muslim women are FORCED to wear the burka (those that follow extremist versions). They are forced by their husbands, mothers and fathers, brothers and muslim community. There are some that are so fanatical (like monks wearing a hair shirt) that they like it but it affects many that don't like it but must do it.
A ban would allow those women to live without it while the muslims that claim they have a 'choice' are not pressured anyway so its not an issue.
A fashion statement being restricted is not harming women, however it covers the issue that for every woman who 'likes' it, there is another that does not, but must and the woman who 'likes' it will be happy to see the other woman wear it regardless.

Just in case you missed the link. The primary victims of Islamic extremism are muslims and the MOST persecuted minority is WOMEN. The terrorism is the burka ON women. It is a cruel and inhuman garment that is designed to terrorise muslim WOMEN into submission.
Those that don't are condemned, threated, raped, beaten or otherwise mistreated, even in the west. Husbands can BEAT their wives in Islam, in the QURAN, for not obeying them. Such abuse is well known. Covering abuse like this with a full body tent also helps this abuse get hidden too.

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 02:08PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Its not a friggin hat. You don't whip it off and on. It is a complicated piece of clothing.

yes, they are tricky beasts to master. took me eight attempts to figure out which hole to put my head into the first time i tried one.

18-08-2016 02:10PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Again with the argument from the NRA. If someone asks you to remove your cap or glasses, you do, without any effort or stigma. Muslim women are FORCED to wear the burka (those that follow extremist versions). They are forced by their husbands, mothers and fathers, brothers and muslim community. There are some that are so fanatical (like monks wearing a hair shirt) that they like it but it affects many that don't like it but must do it.
A ban would allow those women to live without it while the muslims that claim they have a 'choice' are not pressured anyway so its not an issue.
A fashion statement being restricted is not harming women, however it covers the issue that for every woman who 'likes' it, there is another that does not, but must and the woman who 'likes' it will be happy to see the other woman wear it regardless.

100% of wearers?

Michael OBrien · 18-08-2016 02:14PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

100% of wearers?

YES. if they follow extremist versions of Islam. Religiously, traditionally and culturally they are forced into it. If you study Islam and the way they view women and take into account their honor culture and the extremist attempts to be 'pure' in the eyes of their community, they are forced into it.
Ask one of them to remove it in public and they are distressed. You don't get distressed for no reason. Its not just a fashion accessory.

I am not talking about the idiots in Ireland that convert and decide to wear it as a badge of honor for their new faith. They MAY or may not end up being forced or simply go back to hijabs or (while still awful) niqabs.

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 02:15PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Again with the argument from the NRA.

the NRA argument puzzles me. gun crime and guns are linked in a way which is incontrovertible; you cannot have one without the other.

however, you can have terrorism without a burka.

there are plenty of freedoms we have as a society which are used by ne'er-do-wells to plot nefarious acts, such as the right to free assembly, but which would not be touched as they affect everyone.
but we (well, not 'we' per se) are talking about banning the burka, which is handily enough talk of banning a freedom which is only sought by a minority.

you have picked on something you dislike, and are trying to construct an argument around it to justify banning it.

Burka ban

Comments