redwhine Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Im wearing my Klu Klux Klan outfit to a party tonight. Is this bad taste? No. People will just assume you're a run of the mill cafflic from Spain... https://www.google.com/search?q=klu%20klux%20klan&safe=on&tbm=isch#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=catholic+processions+in+spain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think that rule already applies to everyone, I can't imagine a situation where a passport photograph is of someone wearing a burka. You can't wear a burka because it covers the full face. They do however allow people to cover their head with a headscarf for religious reasons but do not allow others to cover their head with (for example) a beanie hat. Either it is a security issue to cover the head or it isn't and you have one rule for all or no rule for all. What we have instead is discrimination where the non-religious are subject to additional restrictions. Here is the official guidance. You tell me how the photo on the right of row 1 masks the face any more than the photo on the left of row 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Government guidelines in practice are what we need here in the UK, as to where the burka can and can't be worn. We don't need to impose a full ban as in France but we could impose restrictions as they do in other European countries. One of the advantages would be an avoidance of the problem a judge in a court case encountered sometime last year when a woman giving evidence refused to remove the burka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Government guidelines in practice are what we need here in the UK, as to where the burka can and can't be worn. We don't need to impose a full ban as in France but we could impose restrictions as they do in other European countries. One of the advantages would be an avoidance of the problem a judge in a court case encountered sometime last year when a woman giving evidence refused to remove the burka. Given the clear requirement of the court the judge probably has the power to just find that person in contempt of court. ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 13:47 ---------- Nor am I and yes but only on the condition that everything that is currently banned because of the offence it may cause is also no longer banned. I understand that you want freedom to be extended, but you don't achieve it by banning extra things unless the things you want are unbanned. ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 13:50 ---------- It is my opinion that everyone in the country should be treat equally, no one should be discriminated against for their religion, race or even the support of the club from S6. That means that everyone has exactly the same rights and responsibilities. To make an exception to that, and allow a specific group of people to be able to act in a way that would not be allowed to the majority is wrong, it's discrimination and causes division, hostility and mistrust. What would be the result of any of you deciding that you were going to walk around the town centre or Meadowhall dressed in your normal attire but with your head covered entirely with a hood with only a slit for your eyes? A lot of funny looks I expect. And potentially you might have difficulty being served, although frankly if you're at a till and you hand over the cash, what's the problem? How long do you suppose it would take before the police or security staff enquired of you what exactly you thought you were doing? Hiding your face is not acceptable in our society and that should be made clear to anyone wishing to do so no matter who they are. It's not illegal, so clearly it is acceptable. I often cover my entire face in the winter whilst cycling, particularly if it's snowing or sleeting. (Not my eyes of course, although I have considered putting on my snowboarding googles a few times). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmen. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 mmm, Joker appreciating proper grammar. I'm impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 12:00 ---------- [/color] What France did and you seem to be advocating is a change in existing legislation to restrict the freedoms of others which to date they've enjoyed. In other words the goal posts are being moved to discriminate against them. Could you confirm it would be a criminal offence to do so? That's the constitutional effect of banning the burka. The police are perfectly entitled to do that (with reason) under present legislation. It seems you're more concerned with the offence it causes you than the perceived subjugation of Muslim females who wear this garment. Apparently the way she shook her 'maracas' offended some people at the time No, what I'm advocating is that the law catches up with life and deals with something that should have been dealt with as soon as it became aware of what was going on. The law moves slower than a glacier but usually gets there in the end. Yes it should be an offence, although not necessarily one that would automatically give the person involved a criminal record. In the same way that breaking the speed limit is an offence but anyone being convicted of it does not become a criminal in the sense in which it is commonly understood. However, just like speeding if you ignore the warnings and continue to flout the law it can become a criminal offence. For the avoidance of doubt, and to prevent nitpickers jumping in, I am not comparing buka wearers with speeding drivers, simply giving an example. Although interestingly enough they are not mutually exclusive and what happens when a burka wearer is caught on camera speeding? Unlike the rest of us, the police are unable to identify who was driving the car and therefore, unlike the rest of us, they have to take the word of the registered owner of the vehicle. As I said, everyone should be treat equally and there is a perfect example of how that is not the case. Cannot be bothered to go back through the thread but if I said that I was offended by burka wearers then I don't recall it , and if I did I was incorrectly using the word, I simply regard the covering of the face by anyone to be against the customs and traditions of this country. I have been fortunate enough to visit quite a few countries - including ones where the population are overwhelmingly Muslim - and I always made an effort to behave in a manner which would not annoy the local people. I once spent an entire day in Jordan without a drink we are talking major sacrifice here, I was on my holidays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Given the clear requirement of the court the judge probably has the power to just find that person in contempt of court.[ . I was giving one example where the facial expressions of a person is required. That case made media headlines, if clarification in the law had been clearer that wouldn't have been necessary. I'm quite glad we don't have to experience a problem of people in the medical professions wearing the burka. Or even staff serving us at the supermarket checkout or other establishments, because I'm sure most of us engaging in conversation with someone face to face appreciate it when we can communicate with someone not wearing a mask. Edited October 31, 2014 by janie48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 13:50 ---------- A lot of funny looks I expect. And potentially you might have difficulty being served, although frankly if you're at a till and you hand over the cash, what's the problem? It's not illegal, so clearly it is acceptable. I often cover my entire face in the winter whilst cycling, particularly if it's snowing or sleeting. (Not my eyes of course, although I have considered putting on my snowboarding googles a few times). In my opinion you would not be allowed to carry on without being questioned and at the very least being told to remove it and stop acting the goat. At worst you could be assaulted by a shopkeeper or passerby on the grounds that they thought that you were going to attack or rob them. They would very probably get away with it, as it would be considered that you brought it upon yourself by your unreasonable and suspicious behavior. As to you covering your face whilst carrying out an activity that called for it that was discussed earlier. Motorcyclists, skiers etc whilst engaged in that activity fine, afterwards uncover the face before interacting with others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You're not interested in listening to any logical argument apparently. I don't expect you to understand as you don't appear to be interested in doing so. I suggest we just drop it. Our positions have been quite clearly stated. Although I do wish you wouldn't apparently lie to support your position. France has no enforced republican secularity IN PUBLIC. Which is where the ban applies. ---------- Post added 30-10-2014 at 14:28 ---------- My wife forces me NOT to wear socks with sandals. In order to stop my persecution we must make it illegal for EVERYONE to wear sandals without socks. Then I will be free of the tyranny... And the ones who didn't want to wear the socks. Well, collateral damage, but if we just say that we aren't oppressing them, and it is in fact a social norm that we are enforcing, well, then it'll all be okay, because their freedom to have cool feet doesn't really matter compared to my freedom from being forced to have cold feet! It is wives like yours that divides the world, shia / sunni/ catholic/ protestant/socks on/socks off. When will the pain end? Oh the humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 In my opinion you would not be allowed to carry on without being questioned and at the very least being told to remove it and stop acting the goat. Meadowhall have the right to refuse entry to people I suppose. At worst you could be assaulted by a shopkeeper or passerby on the grounds that they thought that you were going to attack or rob them. Only if they were some kind of retard. They would very probably get away with it, as it would be considered that you brought it upon yourself by your unreasonable and suspicious behavior. No, they totally wouldn't. It would be an unprovoked assault, and provocation isn't a legal defence anyway. As to you covering your face whilst carrying out an activity that called for it that was discussed earlier. Just making it clear that it is entirely legal, as you keep claiming or implying that it isn't. Motorcyclists, skiers etc whilst engaged in that activity fine, afterwards uncover the face before interacting with others. Or not, since I don't have to and you're not in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts