Ban on Public Burqas

[xdrive]

To what?

It is pretty obvious as to what.

I won't say it because ill get the usual "YOU'RE TROLLING" "YOU'RE A MORON" "YOU'RE RACIST" crap.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

or anyone for that matter, right?



I'm not trying to disguise anything. it's as No Limit said: it's not a black and white issue there are no easy answers. but if I must spell it out for you, which I feel I must because this isnt the first time you've taken interest in my pov; sometimes it's not ok to strip someone of their religious freedom (banning burkas) and other times it's ok to strip someone of their religious freedom (right of the accused to meet their accuser face to face)

so really what's to clarify?

I agree, good post in this thread. Although I would like to say it's not that they're stripping the person of religious freedom in the right to see the accuser case. By accusing another, you volunteer that your identity must be revealed to the accused.

Anything that forces another person to do something when they've remained idle and not affected another person is wrong. Accusing another is affecting them (even if its a true accustation)

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

It is pretty obvious as to what.

I won't say it because ill get the usual "YOU'RE TROLLING" "YOU'RE A MORON" "YOU'RE RACIST" crap.

Interesting.

 

[Yuri]

Well, Erestheux did ask a pretty simple question. What he got in response was a loaded assumption and a lecture.

Everybody has opinions, so I don't know why Stern is trying to disguise his. He doesn't need to come out and fully (not) support measures like this and could explain how he finds merit to both sides of the argument. Instead, he does these little cop-outs like "what we think doesn't matter", which looks to me like an attempt to jettison any personal accountability in the discussion. That's lame as hell and it's understandably irritating to the person he's speaking to, because I don't know if we're having an argument for the sake of it or having a genuine clash in personal views.

But hey, what the hell. Nobody has to please me or anything.

Thanks, Absinthe.


I have an opinion which I've clearly stated. There are certain places and situations where religious freedom can be denied. To address Stern's example, if a courtroom requires by law that a citizen show their face, whether plaintiff, defendant, or witness, then they should be required to do so and I understand the reasoning. Protecting the anonymity of those who accuse people of rape is a separate issue. If anonymity is not legal, than courtroom law supersedes religious attire.

Is it just me or is it super rare for Stern to not have a strong opinion? No one is required to have an opinion one way or another, but "it doesn't matter what we think" can be applied to almost every Politics thread ever made.

 

[Druckles]

You'll note that a well-known religious figure mentioned something to that effect. Putting the law before your religion.

At least, that's how it could be interpreted. His actual situation answered the question of who to pay taxes to.

 

[Dynasty]

They're pushing to do this in the UK, which I find seriously ironic.

Ive seen alot of the world, experienced many cultures, met many amazing people, and I can safely say through my experience that my fellow British people are easily the most racist people on the planet.

We have no right to dictate who wears what in the UK, as we dont obey the laws abroad. We get pissed, start fights and get thrown in jail, usually in Spain.

This comes ENTIRELY down to the fact that everyone thinks that Muslims are all hiding bombs under the clothes, so dont wear a Burqa because I want to be able to see your face so I can ID you and feel less suspicious of you.

Its pathetic. This country has been infected with fear.

We have no right to dictate anyone in this country.

And I want to line everyone up against a wall that complains about foreigners coming into this country and borrow the Terminator's minigun, as THEY are the ones willing to do the jobs you aren't as you sit on your arse claiming benefits you dont need.

 

[Minister]

Please get off your high horse Dynasty. The amount of times you've mentioned your travels and aversion for fellow Brits is quite tiresome. Although not as much as yourself I've travelled quite a lot too. I tend not to go to big resorts in Spain to witness Brits behaving badly, because quite frankly I wouldn't want to. I've met some pretty racist Polish/Indian/Egyptian/British people but I could never make the assumption one country was more racist than the other.

On the topic of the Burqa though, I agree with you.

 

[CptStern]

Thanks, Absinthe.


I have an opinion which I've clearly stated. There are certain places and situations where religious freedom can be denied. To address Stern's example, if a courtroom requires by law that a citizen show their face, whether plaintiff, defendant, or witness, then they should be required to do so and I understand the reasoning. Protecting the anonymity of those who accuse people of rape is a separate issue. If anonymity is not legal, than courtroom law supersedes religious attire.

Is it just me or is it super rare for Stern to not have a strong opinion? No one is required to have an opinion one way or another, but "it doesn't matter what we think" can be applied to almost every Politics thread ever made.

the "doesnt matter what you think" comment is in reference to the fact that up until that point no one had considered that there may be legitimate reasons for trampling on religious freedom rights. those legitimate concerns are for the courts to decide, not us. you've just misinterpreted to mean something else

the right to face your accuser does not trump the right to religious freedom, it never has ie: witness's identity concealed due to safety concern. an argument could be made that revealing their face to the accused could lead to unforeseeable consequences; shunned by community, honor based revenge etc. but that's for the courts to decide based on the circumstances of the individual case. therefore: "it doesnt matter what we think"

 

[StarBob]

Well I mean, in America if you walk into a bank in a ski mask, there's a good chance someone's going to hit the alarm. Hiding your face has always been a way to execute crimes wihout being caught due to recognition. It doesn't seem fair that someone could cover their face through religious justification. Religious justification should not supercede laws... just like you shouldn't be able to practice polygomy as with some mormons or snake handling with some pentacostals (which interestingly enough is only legal in my state). There are a lot of examples of religious practices that have broken laws and I don't think that is right.

This is a much lighter issue in terms of "breaking the law," but it seems necessary that if someone could wear this particular type of burqa around around potentially do things with anonymity, this becomes a much larger issue.

I mean obviously ski masks are not illegal, but the principle stands that if you can't be identified and perpetrate a crime, it will be much more difficult to track you down.

 

[Druckles]

The issue is whether it should be illegal to wear a burqa.

Any respectable religious person would accept the law and adjust to fit accordingly. Otherwise move to a place where they aren't hindered. If you don't want to pay taxes on such-and-such, move to a country where they don't. If you want to have sex with 12-year-olds, move to a country where you can.

 

[CptStern]

The issue is whether it should be illegal to wear a burqa.

there's a reason most countries right freedom from religious persecution into their constitutions/charter of rights

Any respectable religious person would accept the law and adjust to fit accordingly. Otherwise move to a place where they aren't hindered. If you don't want to pay taxes on such-and-such, move to a country where they don't. If you want to have sex with 12-year-olds, move to a country where you can.

they wouldnt accept the lawe because it could never be written in the first place: religious discrimination/persecution

It doesn't seem fair that someone could cover their face through religious justification.

same could be said about Hare Krishnas or priests who hide behind robes; could easily conceal a rocketlauncher and or bible

Religious justification should not supercede laws... just like you shouldn't be able to practice polygomy as with some mormons or snake handling with some pentacostals (which interestingly enough is only legal in my state). There are a lot of examples of religious practices that have broken laws and I don't think that is right.

not the same thing because as you point out it's against the law. there is no law saying you have to show your face until you accuse someone of a crime and have your day in court.

 

[Druckles]

there's a reason most countries write freedom from religious persecution into their constitutions/charter of rights

But this doesn't seem like persecution. You could equally argue a woman wearing a burqa is sexual persecution.

they wouldnt accept the lawe because it could never be written in the first place: religious discrimination/persecution

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[CptStern]

But this doesn't seem like persecution. You could equally argue a woman wearing a burqa is sexual persecution.

lol. no. she's not forced at gun point to wear it. and there's no such thing as sexual persecution. sexual harrassment yes but that's not the same thing

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

you said immigrants would have to live by the no burka rule or go somewhere else. but that wouldnt happen because freedom from religious persecution is constitutionally/charter of rights guarenteed

 

[Druckles]

lol. no. she's not forced at gun point to wear it. and there's no such thing as sexual persecution. sexual harrassment yes but that's not the same thing

In some places they are. It's certainly demoralising and degrading for women who don't wish to wear it.

Yes, there are women who do, but in general, they've been pressured into it by their upbringing and their religion.

you said immigrants would have to live by the no burka rule or go somewhere else. but that wouldnt happen because freedom from religious persecution is constitutionally/charter of rights guarenteed

In much the same way that wearing a burqa when the law says no is less of a crime than killing someone, telling people by law that they can't is less 'religious persecution' than kicking people out of your country for their beliefs.

 

[CptStern]

In some places they are. It's certainly demoralising and degrading for women who don't wish to wear it.

Yes, there are women who do, but in general, they've been pressured into it by their upbringing and their religion.

that's not really the point

In much the same way that wearing a burqa when the law says no is less of a crime than killing someone, telling people by law that they can't is less 'religious persecution' than kicking people out of your country for their beliefs.

but when it's constitutionally protected enacting those laws and having them go unchallenged is difficult at best ...you can see why many countries chose not to write their constitutions onto paper

 

[Druckles]

that's not really the point

As you said, it's not a black and white issue. There are many factors outside 'terrorism vs religious freedom'

but when it's constitutionally protected enacting those laws and having them go unchallenged is difficult at best ...you can see why many countries chose not to write their constitutions onto paper

That's why I don't like politics. Far too many things are so wish-washy and unclear, I try to let other people make those decisions.

But there's also a difference between religion in terms of 'believing whatever you like' and religion in terms of 'doing whatever you believe'.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

the right to face your accuser does not trump the right to religious freedom, it never has ie: witness's identity concealed due to safety concern. an argument could be made that revealing their face to the accused could lead to unforeseeable consequences; shunned by community, honor based revenge etc. but that's for the courts to decide based on the circumstances of the individual case. therefore: "it doesnt matter what we think"

Not sure about Canada but here in the US when on the stand testifying in a court of law you cannot hide your identity, regardless of safety concern. Witness protection program may be used, but you'll have to go to open court first and see the person you're testifying against dead in the eye.

Now giving the police information that leads them to evidence enough to charge another person is different (confidential informant, snitching, etc)- your testimony may not be needed in open court based on the evidence they find so your identity will be concealed. So yes I do see and understand where you were coming from with the example of a protected 'witness' (informant a better word)

When I say right to see your accuser trumping right to hide your identity I mean in open court.

 

[repiV]

Should it be illegal to wear a burqa (or anything else for that matter)? No.

Equally, said community have no right to complain when they get ostracised by everybody else for alienating themselves from the society they chose to come to.

"People hate Muslims". Well, then don't distance yourself so visibly, culturally and socially from the country in which you are guests and turn large areas of our major cities into ghettos which make the rest of us feel like foreigners in our own country. I don't even recognise my hometown anymore. It's been colonised.

In my experience, generally speaking, ethnic minority groups in the UK are far more racist (against each other AND white people) than English people are. Equally, the more well-to-do and successful people from ethnic minority backgrounds, tend to agree on both of the above areas.

 

[CptStern]

Equally, said community have no right to complain when they get ostracised by everybody else for alienating themselves from the society they chose to come to

oh so that's why people hate jews

 

[repiV]

Nah, that's because the bastards never get a round in. :|

 

[CptStern]

no, it pretty much because they're not like the rest of us ..what with their funny hats and gifilte fish

 

[repiV]

See, I could put up with that if they get the beers in now and then.

 

[CptStern]

you could meet them half-way and start swilling kosher/passover wine ...you can almost taste the gifilte

 

[repiV]

That's fair - as long as it's served with bacon.

 

[CptStern]

why not just ask them to mix cheese and pork together in the same FREAKIN' BOWL? oy gevalt dont be meshugana

 

[unozero]

quite frankly I'm a bit offended when I see women walking around like that.
The retailer I work at we get Muslims coming in to the store wearing what seems to be the equivalent of "Church attire" I try to extra friendly to the Ladies

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

quite frankly I'm a bit offended when I see women walking around like that.
The retailer I work at we get Muslims coming in to the store wearing what seems to be the equivalent of "Church attire" I try to extra friendly to the Ladies

You get offended seeing people with a lot of clothes on by their own choice?

hopin my sarcasm detector is broken

 

[unozero]

Well "offended" might have been the wrong word...pity perhaps.

 

[Sparta]

You get offended seeing people with a lot of clothes on by their own choice?

I am always offended to see that Jessica Alba wears clothes. Or Katy Perry.

 

[Drackard]

I am always offended to see that Jessica Alba wears clothes. Or Katy Perry.

Yeah, or Dawn French.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well "offended" might have been the wrong word...pity perhaps.

They're probably feeling the same way about you too for going to have to burn in hell (their POV not mine.) It's two completely different cultures.

 

[Solaris]

I for one, support a ban on the burkha. It's not ideal, but the clothing is as clear a symbol of female oppression as you can see. If all the women wore it in free will then it would be a different matter, but it isn't. Women are forced to wear them and for that reason, ban them.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I for one, support a ban on the burkha. It's not ideal, but the clothing is as clear a symbol of female oppression as you can see. If all the women wore it in free will then it would be a different matter, but it isn't. Women are forced to wear them and for that reason, ban them.

I can't understand this mindset! It just is mindboggling to me. You live in a free nation. You're punishing religious freedom of people in Europe by supporting that just because in some middle eastern countries they're not free?

So we ban any symbols that do not support freedom now? Who decides what is a symbol against freedom?

What's next, communists can't display the hammer and sickle? That is a HUGE symbol against freedom historically. I oppose their views but I'd defend to death their right to wave it, wear it, draw it, etc. The hammer and sickle is a clear symbol of human rights oppression.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

What countries in the ME have free burkas? I'm a Jew (don't tell them) and am interested

 

[VirusType2]

I should be able to wear a gas mask into a bank. It's a free country.


At least they should have to show their face on an ID. Isn't that what identification is for?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I should be able to wear a gas mask into a bank. It's a free country.


At least they should have to show their face on an ID. Isn't that what identification is for?

You'd be on private property so it'd be the bank's choice whether to allow it or not, not the governments. You should be allowed to wear a gas mask in public.

Face for ID should be mandatory, but ID should not be compulsory except for those who immigrate.

Burqa ban is completely wrong and is the same as those countries in the middle east that have banned Bibles, etc.

 

[The Monkey]

The number of women who weap burqas are extremely small. It's not like this is a widespread problem that the government(s) has to deal with. Banning it in banks and for public sector workers is obviously good, and something that's in place in most countries already. But one shouldn't go further than that.

 

[Solaris]

I can't understand this mindset! It just is mindboggling to me. You live in a free nation. You're punishing religious freedom of people in Europe by supporting that just because in some middle eastern countries they're not free?

So we ban any symbols that do not support freedom now? Who decides what is a symbol against freedom?

What's next, communists can't display the hammer and sickle? That is a HUGE symbol against freedom historically. I oppose their views but I'd defend to death their right to wave it, wear it, draw it, etc. The hammer and sickle is a clear symbol of human rights oppression.

You misunderstand me. In the UK many Muslim women are entered into forced arranged marrages, abused by their husbands and forced to wear Burkhas when they go outside.

I doubt many women wear them through there own free will, and those who do, tough.

 

[CptStern]

You misunderstand me. In the UK many Muslim women are entered into forced arranged marrages, abused by their husbands and forced to wear Burkhas when they go outside.

I doubt many women wear them through there own free will, and those who do, tough.

how many muslim women have you met? there's currently 2 muslim women (saudi arabian and iraqi) at work. one wears a hijab and the other dresses no different than any other woman in the office. both have said that in their cases it was their choice. no one forced them to do anything. now that doesnt mean it's the norm however but at least it's some evidence that it's not as you say.

 

[Solaris]

how many muslim women have you met? there's currently 2 muslim women (saudi arabian and iraqi) at work. one wears a hijab and the other dresses no different than any other woman in the office. both have said that in their cases it was their choice. no one forced them to do anything. now that doesnt mean it's the norm however but at least it's some evidence that it's not as you say.

I've met a ton of Muslim women, probably more than you.

However, what have two random women at your work got to do with it, we are talking specifically about the Burka.

Burka=/=head scarf