Galwayguy35 wrote: » Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.
Giraffe Box wrote: » 'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp
Galwayguy35 wrote: » No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.
Giraffe Box wrote: » Very similar views though.
Dannyriver wrote: » Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.
dennispenn wrote: » She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.
thebull85 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZS9fcWJo Its prayer time, so f**k everyone else on the road. Corduffistan
Danzy wrote: » There are other polls, by reputable and State wide polling companies in Britain that give even worse percentages on those issues. 28% of young Muslims in Britain say it is justifiable to kill for the faith, same % roughly, said the murder of the Charlie Hebdo activists was justified. In France there is about 30% as well with those views. This is not a small problem. On average the Islamic community is more conservative than the host community, but many are to the right of the inquisition. Armed extremism is small but extremist views are not small. On those %s it will not take much for armed extremism to become a serious issue in large parts of England. That is another issue though, it does not take from the Islamic community have a severe regressive belief system. If a third of Catholics had views that were at home in Franco's Spain it would be a major story and rightly so, when near the same of the Islamic community in much of Europe have views that are of many magnitudes more extreme, it is a down played. They only time a modern Left wing politician will shake hands with a person who calls for Jews and gays to be killed, who advocates wife beating, who will sit in gender segregated meetings is if that person is from the Islamic Community. The modern Left looks at the skin, many of us look at the culture and beliefs behind this.
Skinhead Kane wrote: » Greetings guys and girls, I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and have yet to make a real judgement on what truly would be a correct answer. If were to go to a country populated by the Muslim community we would be asked to cover up and follow their religious procedure. Therefore in Britain and Ireland I believe we are within our rights to ban something that isolates woman and was made by men to oppress them. If I were to show my hair/head in their countries, I would be seen as obscene. Recently came back from a trip and had some female friends been told by locals to cover their arms and legs as well as hair before entering out of the city centre areas. It was a very aggressive approach to and almost demanded 'or we leave the country' type of attitude. Now not using this as a reason or motive to make this topic, but it has however got me thinking. If I could vote on it, I would ban burqas and possibly hijab. What's your take on this guys? Regards, Sk
Sassygirl1999 wrote: » niqabs are fine, can the rest
Captain Obvious wrote: » How would you enforce it?
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.
Deleted User wrote: » on the spot fines?
Captain Obvious wrote: » First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit. Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?
Captain Obvious wrote: » How would you know who you are fining?
DChancer wrote: » Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.
Captain Obvious wrote: » First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.
Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?
Deleted User wrote: » I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing. You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » This again, Jesus. It is perfectly legal to ask anyone to remove a face covering, hoodie, baseball cap, balaclava, bike helmet - etc when going into a post office, bank or shop. You seem to constantly be of the mind that Article 44.2 somehow precludes a ban ? The full face covering the burka and niqab is not demanded anywhere in the Quran and so as a cultural and not a religious garment, there's no religious aspect. Besides - all 44.2 states is "2 - The State guarantees not to endow any religion." That's it. If women wearing are happy to be told what to wear by their ignorant, insecure men then fine - none of my business. But don't expect to walk round wearing it when a kid has to take off his hoodie in the same place.
Deleted User wrote: » Pretty "obvious" considering what they're wearing.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Sadly - for you - you're wrong. That style dress is not demanded as a religious right - as the Sikh turban etc (which is why there are driving exceptions for those who must wear it). It is purely cultural and not covered by the Equal Status Act (the correct name btw).
Captain Obvious wrote: » Constantly? I just posted on this thread for the first time. 44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen." Not sure why you skipped that part. Your argument seems to be that those particular items of clothing are not religious because they aren't mentioned in the Quaran. I don't think that would really hold up. There is nothing in the Bible requiring a priest to wear a collar or a bishop to wear his garments but they are religious garments none the less. They are worn for the purpose of practicing the religion. I don't think your argument would hold up in court. And that's before you get into any freedom of expression arguments. Out of curiosity, what benefit do you think banning these items of clothing and fining and locking up women who wear them would bring to the country?
DChancer wrote: » Wrong! But go ahead, try discriminating on basis of religion and see how much it costs you.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
