Burka ban

robindch · 04-10-2011 04:37PM

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

swampgas wrote: »

the women will have to fight for their rights.

Yes, and one of the ways this is done is by the state stepping in to support their right to wear what they want, rather than being forced to wear what their oppressors want them to wear. If the state chooses to do nothing, then -- as in the UK -- the religious oppressors/brainwashers can legitimately conclude that they, rather than the state, are what define people's rights.

As I said ages ago somewhere, this debate is as much about drawing a line in the sand with respect to the power of the religious to dictate how others should live, as much as it is to step in to protect rights that have been ignored.

swampgas wrote: »

What is less clear (to me) is what the state can best do to support women who may come up against death threats and violence, when they challenge the value system of a culture that denies them equal treatement. Is the basic protection of the law enough? Are more pro-active measures required?

Short of putting cameras into every home with a burka-clad woman, it's impossible to know what goes on -- whether it's oppression or as a result of brainwashing. All the state can do is to decide that the majority (all?) of cases of burka-wearing fall into either of these categories, then make a decision that both are bad, then decide to ban the instrument that's used to signal either -- in this case the burka. In the hope that (a) the signalling will be forced to stop and the right of women to wear what they want is reasserted and (b) as above, that the women will see the support from the state, and begin to push for independence in other areas as well.

swampgas wrote: »

I would be very interested to know what these women would make of a burka ban.

Depends on which of the two categories of burka-wearers -- oppressed or brainwashed -- that the individual burka-wearer fell into. In the case of the first, probably most would welcome the burka ban (this is certainly my experience of the Middle East where the majority of burka-wearers appear to hate the burka with a worrying passion). In the case of the brainwashed, most would probably be well cheesed off that their "traditions" and "rights" are being trampled upon.

04-10-2011 06:36PM

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

Yes, and one of the ways this is done is by the state stepping in to support their right to wear what they want

By stepping in to ban their right to wear what they want, you mean

robindch · 04-10-2011 06:48PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

By stepping in to ban their right to wear what they want, you mean

So is a choice "free" if it's carried out under coercion or via brain-washing?

04-10-2011 06:49PM

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

robindch wrote: »

So is a choice "free" if it's carried out under coercion or via brain-washing?

It's certainly no more free if it's banned by law

robindch · 04-10-2011 06:55PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

It's certainly no more free if it's banned by law

We agree that coercion is bad.

So what about the results of the two kinds of coercion.

Which of these -- allowing women to wear anything except one thing, or allowing women to wear only one thing -- is the more restrictive?

05-10-2011 08:48PM

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

The thing is that by banning one item you are also most likely banning their freedom of movement; it can't be looked at in isolation.
In any case they're still wearing anything else... under the burka :pac:

robindch · 02-02-2012 03:52PM

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

Here's when a burka can be useful:

A Pakistani television presenter tries to find couples holding hands, then broadcasts the results on national television. Luckily for the two involved in the clip quoted by the bbc, the lady had a burka, and her guy had a plastic bag handy, so that they couldn't be identified and run the risk of receiving some islamic justice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16809139

Oddly, given the direction Pakistan is heading in, the presenter was fired for this stunt.

robindch · 31-05-2012 11:38AM

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

A candidate for leadership of the Egyptian Coptic christian church reckons that christian women should "follow the example" of islamic women, and wear the burka too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/egypt-women-cover-up-coptic

Meanwhile, reports of men assaulting un-burka'd women are becoming increasingly common in Egypt.

iguana · 31-05-2012 11:17PM

robindch wrote: »

A candidate for leadership of the Egyptian Coptic christian church reckons that christian women should "follow the example" of islamic women, and wear the burka too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/egypt-women-cover-up-coptic

Meanwhile, reports of men assaulting un-burka'd women are becoming increasingly common in Egypt.

There is not one single mention of a burka in that article. For some reason there is a picture of a woman in a niqab, which seems sensationalist as the article also mentions nothing about that level of cover either. The article references women having trouble for not fully covering their arms (and legs) and for leaving their heads uncovered. But as unpleasant as that situation undoubtedly is, there is a big, big difference between a burka and a headscarf like a hijab or a shayla.

robindch · 31-05-2012 11:55PM

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

iguana wrote: »

But as unpleasant as that situation undoubtedly is, there is a big, big difference between a burka and a headscarf like a hijab or a shayla.

Schoolboy error on my part. I'd assumed that the photo attached to the article referred to what the bish was talking about. On googling and rechecking the quotation included in the original article (and a subsequent clarification), the bish advised, as you say, Egyptian women with christian beliefs to wear, not the burka, but a scarf to cover their hair.

One assumes that the bish feels that such an act will help to prevent Egyptian men from winding themselves up into such a state of untrammelled sexual frenzy by the sight of human skin and hair, that they no longer feel the need to resort to "insults, spitting and in some cases physical abuse".

fitz0 · 01-06-2012 01:08PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Burkaphilia is a series of works that use the burka as an interface to make commentary regarding cross-cultural bias. More specifically, of what the average Western person (including myself) would associate as an extreme practice of wearing a burka, through iconographic and symbolic imagery. Common themes of the series are popular American foods as well as obsession with consumption and sexuality. The series includes pieces such as a red burka (made entirely of Fruit Roll Ups), a black latex burka and a Fruit Loop cereal burka.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/01/quirky-burkas/

http://twentytwowords.com/2012/05/31/burka-made-of-red-fruit-roll-ups/

Sarky · 01-06-2012 01:11PM

... I probably wouldn't mind seeing burkas all over the place so much if it was made entirely out of fruit rollups >_>

robindch · 01-06-2012 01:18PM

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

Sarky wrote: »

[...] fruit rollups [...]

Is that what they're called? Gosh, you learn something new every day -- my kid will be *so* impressed

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 01-06-2012 01:20PM

I'm religious and support the ban

for some reason that red one is kinda sexy...

Sarky · 01-06-2012 01:22PM

Typical Muslim wimmins, shamelessly inflaming male desire with the way they cover themselves up.

iguana · 01-06-2012 01:36PM

Sarky wrote: »

... I probably wouldn't mind seeing burkas all over the place so much if it was made entirely out of fruit rollups >_>

The fruit loops one would be better if it was made of candy necklaces though.

joseph brand · 01-06-2012 07:05PM

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

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

for some reason that red one is kinda sexy...

Better: (prob nsfw)

http://koolnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/1_lil-kim-burqa.jpg

SeanW · 09-06-2012 10:53PM

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

irishconvert wrote: »

So in other words, you want to pass legislation which will have a dramatic negative effect the lives of these women purely a hunch you have that they might be opressed. The truth is you have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

How is it "dramatically negative" when it will most likely counter the intense pressure from family, forced-marriage husband etc to wear a ridiculous tent, that makes them stick out like an ugly, sore thumb.

From my understanding, it isn't even a requirement of most forms of Islam, only the most deranged sorts like Wahabbism and the sort enforced by the Taliban.

There's a cultural aspect to this as well. Burkhas are generally only worn in the countries with the most insane forms of Islam, Wahabbism, Salafism etc, and that conform 150% to all the bad stereotypes of Islam, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Taliban Pakistan/Afghanistan.

The sort of extremist muslim where men force this on "their" women is also likely the same people who teach their children that non-Muslims are infidels and are most likely to engage in hate preaching, FGM, honor killing and terrorism. They're also the ones most likely to have massive families as well.

This is my country and I am proud of our Western heritage and someone wants to live like they're still in Saudi Arabia or Taliban administered area, as far as I am concerned, they know where the airport is and I suggest they get a plane back to whatever backward ****hole whose culture they admire so much.

You are the opressor and you are blind to this fact.

There's nothing "opressor" about it, this is the Western world, not Saudi Arabia, and if someone doesn't like it, they're free to leave.

Gbear · 10-06-2012 12:52AM

I'm religious and support the ban

I can't in good conscience support this. I believe in freedom. Sometimes that also includes accepting things you'd rather not.

If woman are being forced into it against their will, there needs to be very clear messages from government (for the tiny minority that it affects) that it is against the law and they can wear what they like.

For those who've been brainwashed into believing the oppressive self-flagellating horse****, then it's entirely their own choice.

Not only do I consider banning an item of clothing immoral, but it's also always going to be counter productive. Banning stuff and pissing off people by doing so is a sure-fire way to get them to do the thing you're trying to ban.

Mark Hamill · 10-06-2012 12:51PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

If woman are being forced into it against their will, there needs to be very clear messages from government (for the tiny minority that it affects) that it is against the law and they can wear what they like.

A lot of these women can't go out without male supervision, so how exactly do you think the government can get across their message to them? Even if they do get the message, you are left with women who would have to criminalise their spouses and male relatives in order to get away from the oppression, many of which wont. Ban the burka and society criminalises the men for the women, making escape from oppression that little bit easier for the women.

Gbear wrote: »

For those who've been brainwashed into believing the oppressive self-flagellating horse****, then it's entirely their own choice.

If they've been brainwashed, how is it their choice?

Gbear wrote: »

Banning stuff and pissing off people by doing so is a sure-fire way to get them to do the thing you're trying to ban.

So lets get rid of all of our laws then?

robindch · 10-06-2012 02:08PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

For those who've been brainwashed [...] then it's entirely their own choice.

That's where you're going wrong

Gbear · 10-06-2012 02:28PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A lot of these women can't go out without male supervision, so how exactly do you think the government can get across their message to them? Even if they do get the message, you are left with women who would have to criminalise their spouses and male relatives in order to get away from the oppression, many of which wont. Ban the burka and society criminalises the men for the women, making escape from oppression that little bit easier for the women.

The end doesn't justify the means for me. I don't compromise on my belief in freedom.
There's no reason to ban any item of clothing over any other. It sets a dangerous and, most of all stupid, precedent.

In any situation where an individual tries to leave a group of crazy religious people it creates problems. Only have to look at the atheism reddit to see how far they'll go. If people want to break away from the oppression more than they want to stay with their families, then that's what they will do. Once they do that the law has to protect them but unless they make that decision as far as I'm concerned the government's hands should be tied.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they've been brainwashed, how is it their choice?

Should you force adult Johovah's witnesses to have blood transfusions? All religious people are brainwashed. That doesn't mean that none of them are allowed to make decisions.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So lets get rid of all of our laws then?

No.

My point was that not only is it immoral but it's unlikely to work to the point where it will be counter productive. I don't see banning an item of clothing as a "stable" law that'll have any longevity.

In general I think attacking the wearing of the burqa's is a case of attacking symptoms of a greater problem.

In "multicultural" countries, foreign cultures are allowed to exist in parallel. I don't think that's going to be possible for much longer.
I think the best solution to all of this is comprehensive secular curriculum that all children must be taught. No private religious schools, no home schooling.
If muslim or christian children are given the same logical tools as everyone else then it should lead to stupid beliefs like the burqa or avoiding blood transfusions falling by the wayside.

While we (the western world, not so much Ireland) might currently have ghetto's on insular muslim communities keeping their own customs, if they were exposed to logic and science as well as the superiour western culture that values personal freedom and abandons the archaic versions of "honour", "shame", "respect" and so forth that lead to so much harm, particularly to women, then I think it would empower all of these oppressed people more. They can still believe nonsense if they want to but I think it's the states job to give them the right tools to make informed decisions on how they want to live.
And if the state is forcing the issue by shaping the minds of children to be more logical and less superstitious and fearful, then hopefully, the adults would follow suit or bugger off back to somewhere that has more medieval customs.

I think banning the burqa is immoral, counter productive and I think it's unnecessary when there are more effective and broader solutions that would strike at the heart of nonsense and it's negative effects on society.

Mark Hamill · 11-06-2012 12:34AM

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

Gbear wrote: »

The end doesn't justify the means for me. I don't compromise on my belief in freedom.
There's no reason to ban any item of clothing over any other. It sets a dangerous and, most of all stupid, precedent.

Should we remove all laws then, so as to give people total freedom? Would that even work? How long before someones attempt on freedom infringes on someone elses freedom? Your lack of compromise seems very naive to me.

Gbear wrote: »

In any situation where an individual tries to leave a group of crazy religious people it creates problems. Only have to look at the atheism reddit to see how far they'll go. If people want to break away from the oppression more than they want to stay with their families, then that's what they will do. Once they do that the law has to protect them but unless they make that decision as far as I'm concerned the government's hands should be tied.

Thats easy to say when they are adults, but what about the kids, the little girls brainwashed or forced into the burka who can't get away from their families? Doing nothing changes nothing and helps no-one.

Gbear wrote: »

Should you force adult Johovah's witnesses to have blood transfusions? All religious people are brainwashed. That doesn't mean that none of them are allowed to make decisions.

We already prosecute people for doing certain religiously motivated actions, such as honour killings or religiously motivated child abuse, that would not necessarily be prosecuted in other countries, so why can't we ban others if they are deemed damaging to our society?

Gbear wrote: »

My point was that not only is it immoral but it's unlikely to work to the point where it will be counter productive. I don't see banning an item of clothing as a "stable" law that'll have any longevity.

But is the burka itself not essentially a ban on (visible) items of clothing? How is the burka moral, but a ban on the burka immoral?

Gbear wrote: »

In "multicultural" countries, foreign cultures are allowed to exist in parallel. I don't think that's going to be possible for much longer.

Foreign cultures are allowed to exist up to a point. Should we allow foreign groups to physically abuse their women if they believe their culture allows/requires it?

Gbear wrote: »

I think the best solution to all of this is comprehensive secular curriculum that all children must be taught. No private religious schools, no home schooling.
If muslim or christian children are given the same logical tools as everyone else then it should lead to stupid beliefs like the burqa or avoiding blood transfusions falling by the wayside.
While we (the western world, not so much Ireland) might currently have ghetto's on insular muslim communities keeping their own customs, if they were exposed to logic and science as well as the superiour western culture that values personal freedom and abandons the archaic versions of "honour", "shame", "respect" and so forth that lead to so much harm, particularly to women, then I think it would empower all of these oppressed people more. They can still believe nonsense if they want to but I think it's the states job to give them the right tools to make informed decisions on how they want to live.
And if the state is forcing the issue by shaping the minds of children to be more logical and less superstitious and fearful, then hopefully, the adults would follow suit or bugger off back to somewhere that has more medieval customs.

And how would that not be immoral in the same way as banning the burka? How is that not us telling someone who follows a different culture/religion what they and cannot do? What about the freedom of parents to educate their kids as they wish (these parents want education that supports their religious beliefs)? Don't get me wrong, I agree with this (in addition to banning the burka), there should only be a single secular curriculum, but to do so would fall afoul of "infringing of freedoms", just like a burka ban. You can't complain about infringing of freedoms while suggesting infringing of freedoms.

You argument is naive, contradictory and, 43 pages into this thread, its nothing new.

Gbear · 11-06-2012 01:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Should we remove all laws then, so as to give people total freedom? Would that even work? How long before someones attempt on freedom infringes on someone elses freedom? Your lack of compromise seems very naive to me.

I should clarify - I don't compromise on my belief that freedom is absolute right up until somebody elses freedom is impinged upon.
You should be allowed do anything that doesn't take away another person's freedom.

So - you can't force people to wear things but you shouldn't be able to force them not to wear things either. It's the individual's choice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats easy to say when they are adults, but what about the kids, the little girls brainwashed or forced into the burka who can't get away from their families? Doing nothing changes nothing and helps no-one.

Well, for starters, with a secular education they wouldn't be allowed to wear it in school.
Then, they'd be told in school that forcing people to wear things is wrong and illegal (it should be illegal to force people to wear anything - that's not to say that I agree that any particular item of clothing should be banned).
They'd be encouraged to speak out and promised support.
If social services gave the parents a call and threatened them with legal action, they'd either relent, have their children taken off them, or be forced to leave the country.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We already prosecute people for doing certain religiously motivated actions, such as honour killings or religiously motivated child abuse, that would not necessarily be prosecuted in other countries, so why can't we ban others if they are deemed damaging to our society?

We don't just ban things because they're damaging to society. Alcohol? Fast food? Not getting enough exercise?
Honour killing is murder, child abuse is child abuse.
There could indeed be scope for banning burqa's for children - they're different, they obviously need more protection, so I'm open to that tbh.

It's for adults that my particular gripe is about.
Whether or not they've been indoctrinated, who are you to tell a muslim woman who believes that "her honour is preserved by wearing the burqa" or whatever other bull**** they use to justify it, that she isn't allowed because you know what's best for her?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But is the burka itself not essentially a ban on (visible) items of clothing? How is the burka moral, but a ban on the burka immoral?

I didn't say it was moral. But then again neither is cheating on your wife.
Morality shouldn't be that relevant to law - I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Foreign cultures are allowed to exist up to a point. Should we allow foreign groups to physically abuse their women if they believe their culture allows/requires it?

No.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And how would that not be immoral in the same way as banning the burka? How is that not us telling someone who follows a different culture/religion what they and cannot do? What about the freedom of parents to educate their kids as they wish (these parents want education that supports their religious beliefs)? Don't get me wrong, I agree with this (in addition to banning the burka), there should only be a single secular curriculum, but to do so would fall afoul of "infringing of freedoms", just like a burka ban. You can't complain about infringing of freedoms while suggesting infringing of freedoms.

Again, probably because I wasn't being clear enough, you've made an assumption that I believe in absolute freedom and that all rights have equal footing.
I think parents should have fewer rights in relation to "their" children. We need to be giving them a better start in life and that includes a proper education.
The right to indoctrinate your children or do with them what you will, should be secondary to the rights that the child has themselves.

Rev Hellfire · 11-06-2012 01:24PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

You should be allowed do anything that doesn't take away another person's freedom.

or is it

Gbear wrote: »

Well, for starters, with a secular education they wouldn't be allowed to wear it in school.

I can't help but think you've not really thought this out.

Gbear · 11-06-2012 01:59PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

or is it

I can't help but think you've not really thought this out.

Unless you want me to post a 50 page comprehensive manifesto, then i can't cover every eventuality at once.

For a secular country to function it requires separation of church and state.

While you are representing the country you should be required to be neutral on that front to maintain church-state separation - hence teachers can't wear it during school hours.

For the children, I've already ceded the point because they're not the same as adults. They require different protections and different prohibitions.

Rev Hellfire · 11-06-2012 02:05PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

For a secular country to function it requires separation of church and state.

While you are representing the country you should be required to be neutral on that front to maintain church-state separation - hence teachers can't wear it during school hours.

So basically its OK for the state to restrict what people choose to wear.

But what if someone wears it for cultural reasons as opposed to religious reasons does it become OK for them to wear it then ?

Mark Hamill · 11-06-2012 02:47PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

So - you can't force people to wear things but you shouldn't be able to force them not to wear things either. It's the individual's choice.

Well, for starters, with a secular education they wouldn't be allowed to wear it in school.Then, they'd be told in school that forcing people to wear things is wrong and illegal

Did you not read this before you posted? Like I said, your argument is contradictory and naive.

Gbear wrote: »

If social services gave the parents a call and threatened them with legal action, they'd either relent, have their children taken off them, or be forced to leave the country.

And how would that work? Kids are forced to do everything they do, from going to school to eating vegetables. How could social services threaten parents for making their kids dress a way they don't want to but not for making their kids go to school or eat broccoli? What about the parent who forces their daughter to wear a blouse and knee length skirt, as opposed to the mini-skirt and tube top she would prefer? You need to think your statements out properly.

Gbear wrote: »

We don't just ban things because they're damaging to society. Alcohol? Fast food? Not getting enough exercise?
Honour killing is murder, child abuse is child abuse.

Well actually we do, once we believe they are damaging enough. Thats why adults can drink alcohol, but kids can't, its more damaging for kids to drink alcohol.

Gbear wrote: »

It's for adults that my particular gripe is about.
Whether or not they've been indoctrinated, who are you to tell a muslim woman who believes that "her honour is preserved by wearing the burqa" or whatever other bull**** they use to justify it, that she isn't allowed because you know what's best for her?

Who am I? I am Mark Hamill, my username is on the left. Who are you to say I can't? This "who are you" nonsense is just a call to emotion, it means nothing. If I'm wrong, then explain how I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, then I am right.

Gbear wrote: »

I didn't say it was moral. But then again neither is cheating on your wife.
Morality shouldn't be that relevant to law - I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Morality shouldn't be relevant to law? Seriously?

Gbear wrote: »

No.

Exactly. We tolerate foreign cultures up to the point where they try to break our laws and there is no reason to allow them to break our laws simple because its their "culture". They can argue for a change in the law all they want, but they don't get to break simply because they disagree with them, no more than an Irish national would be allowed to.

Gbear wrote: »

Again, probably because I wasn't being clear enough, you've made an assumption that I believe in absolute freedom and that all rights have equal footing.
I think parents should have fewer rights in relation to "their" children. We need to be giving them a better start in life and that includes a proper education.
The right to indoctrinate your children or do with them what you will, should be secondary to the rights that the child has themselves.

OK, but you have to be careful in using absolute terms in your arguments. When you say you want all kids in secular education, this does infringe on the freedom of parents to have their kids indoctrinated, so this conflicts with your statements on having no compromise on freedom.

Gbear · 11-06-2012 03:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So basically its OK for the state to restrict what people choose to wear.

But what if someone wears it for cultural reasons as opposed to religious reasons does it become OK for them to wear it then ?

No. The state can say what their employees have to wear while on duty. It's their prerogative.

Again, it's different for adults and children.

Nobody is forcing you to work for the state. If you want to work for them, you go by their rules.

For children, I didn't mean to suggest that I am completely sold on forcing children to wear something or not to wear another.
Just that they're not subject to the same rules as adults so a different debate is to be had on what laws govern their clothing.
To avoid going on a big massive tangent taking this debate way off course I'd rather leave the notion that children and adults should have somewhat different standing in the law as axiomatic.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you not read this before you posted? Like I said, your argument is contradictory and naive.

I've said a few times now, children and adults are different.
What an adult wears in their own time should be entirely their choice.
If either the government or someone else is forcing them to wear or not to wear something I believe that's wrong.

If they aren't willing to be forced to wear a burqa then they need to be supported by the state to make that decision but I don't believe it's the place of the state to go any further than that.
If they believe in their own thralldome, I don't think there's much we should do. Even if someone is wrong, I think it's their right to be.

If they want to escape from the tyranny then they have to have the courage to make a stand. I think giving them encouragement to make that stand and protecting them when they do is what is required from society but the decision should be theirs.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And how would that work? Kids are forced to do everything they do, from going to school to eating vegetables. How could social services threaten parents for making their kids dress a way they don't want to but not for making their kids go to school or eat broccoli? What about the parent who forces their daughter to wear a blouse and knee length skirt, as opposed to the mini-skirt and tube top she would prefer? You need to think your statements out properly.

It's a good debate and I was giving an example of a solution which prevents children from wearing the burqa.
Like I said above, I'm not completely sold one way or the other on the rights and responsibilities of children and some of the points you make are why.
I find it difficult to justify the burqa for children outside of government property certainly.
I'd rather avoid that topic from here on in if you wouldn't mind - at least until we resolve the debate for adults. That way tangents lie.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well actually we do, once we believe they are damaging enough. Thats why adults can drink alcohol, but kids can't, its more damaging for kids to drink alcohol.

It isn't even that clear cut. Alcohol is more harmful than drugs but we ban one and not the other. The arbitrariness makes bad law and that's why I think that maximum possible freedom is the only way we're likely to go, as gradual and slow a process as it might be.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who am I? I am Mark Hamill, my username is on the left. Who are you to say I can't? This "who are you" nonsense is just a call to emotion, it means nothing. If I'm wrong, then explain how I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, then I am right.

It's a perfectly legitimate use of the phrase. You have no more right to dictate what people should wear than anyone else. They're adults and it's their own choice.
If you take it to it's logical conclusion what you're doing is (I think rather arrogantly) assuming that religious people are incapable of making decisions on what they wear.

People need to be also free to be stupid for freedom to have any integrity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Morality shouldn't be relevant to law? Seriously?

They often overlap but we don't make all things that are immoral illegal.
Is it moral to laugh at someone with a limp? I don't think so.
Should it be made illegal?
Or what about the aforementioned infidelity?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Exactly. We tolerate foreign cultures up to the point where they try to break our laws and there is no reason to allow them to break our laws simple because its their "culture". They can argue for a change in the law all they want, but they don't get to break simply because they disagree with them, no more than an Irish national would be allowed to.

The law as it is isn't necessarily law as it should be. We're not having this debate on the basis that all laws are just.
You don't believe that I think muslims or any other culture should be allowed to flaunt local laws to facilitate their culture.
Nothing I've said should lead you that conclusion.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to tell an adult what to wear if they're doing it in their own time.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK, but you have to be careful in using absolute terms in your arguments. When you say you want all kids in secular education, this does infringe on the freedom of parents to have their kids indoctrinated, so this conflicts with your statements on having no compromise on freedom.

True. I've had alot of debates on this and sometimes I forget that I haven't laid out everything.:o

What I have in my head and what ends up on the screen sometimes loses a bit in translation and ambiguity is the result.
But it's hard to spot until someone who isn't me points it out.

Rev Hellfire · 11-06-2012 03:26PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

No. The state can say what their employees have to wear while on duty. It's their prerogative.

And those the state have a right to restrict what non-employees wear within their property?

Burka ban

Comments