Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

[Zamo]

A) not all Muslims behave like that.

 

Individuals differ but groups share common traits. We are judging the group not individuals where there will always be examples of people who do not comply with the generalisation. Should we have not bombed Germany during WWII because not all Germans were Nazi's? Generalisations are inevitable and are not rendered irrelevant by the fact that they do not work at individual level.

 

B) Should we always behave at the level of the lowest common denominator?

For example, criminals break the law, does that mean that none of us should feel obliged to follow it?

 

I proposed a reason for growing intolerance i.e. there are real issues we are suffering that should not be tolerated and this is compounded by the fact that the community from which these issues stem have themselves a bad track record of respecting other peoples freedoms and rights. I suggest that the intolerance is not entirely unjustified and, whether you agree with that statement or not, the fact remains that telling people to stay tolerant is not effective.

 

If you take your crime analogy then it is no different to someone pointing out that you cannot reduce crime by simply telling criminals not to be criminal. If you want to reduce crime then you have to tackle the root causes that lead to criminality e.g. poverty, drug abuse, abuse during childhood, lack of opportunity, lack of education etc.

 

If growing intolerance towards Muslims is to be reversed then the root causes need to be addressed. We need to see extremism in check, the terrorism threat subside, grooming issues addressed and respect for rights and freedoms reciprocated. Saying these are no excuses will not stop the growing feelings of intolerance any more than saying poverty is no excuse for criminality will stop people with no money turning to crime. This is the reality whether people like it or not.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Zamo

[Cyclone]

Bombing civilians is a war crime. Was that the example you wanted to use?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 08:18 ----------

 

Won't it? You don't think they're going to get tired of either paying the fines, doing the time, or doing all the shopping and other public environment tasks at some stage?

 

You don't think they'll oppress and bully in different ways?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 08:21 ----------

 

Are you really that obtuse? How many times do you have to have it explained?

 

The myth that everyone could wear a burka is ridiculous. If everyone began covering their face it would be banned, it would be classed as obstructing the police in the execution of their duties, and that would be correct.

It isn't banned, I don't agree that it would be banned, so why do you keep claiming that you aren't allowed to wear one.

 

Anyone is entitled to wear what they want within reason, concealing the face is not 'within reason', it dehumanizes the person behind the mask, no friendliness can be exchanged, no acknowledgment that a fellow human being is present can be shown, it is alienating.

It quite clearly is within reason since there are no laws against it, and it happens fairly often in various circumstances.

 

You say there is no requirement to be friendly to anyone, no there isn't, but once again, that should be down to personal choice.

Yes, but it should be their choice, not yours.

 

The choice of these women has been effectively removed hasn't it?

No, that's precisely what you're trying to do.

 

As for my Muslim friends, those that I have discussed it with think burkas should be banned, they believe that in the most part the women are given no choice and that it reflects badly on the whole Muslim community as certain people 'tar them all with the same brush'.

I'm not convinced that you have any Muslim friends, or that if you do you are honestly communicating their views. I'll wait until I they post for themselves and reserve judgement until then.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 08:26 ----------

 

My God you're hard work, and becoming evasive.

Whereas you have twisted desperately to find a good reason to ban the burka, but basically just don't like it.

 

Baseball caps and hoodies have been banned in certain circumstances.

Not by law in public.

 

Owners of property which allow public access can ban hoodies and any other item of clothing if they so wish, football replica shirts are banned in many establishments.

So what's your point, we're discussing the law, not the rules in your local.

 

And there is the inequality. Burka wearers are allowed to conceal their identity whilst others are not.

So argue that it shouldn't be legal to ban items of clothing in private venues then.

 

Your Benjamin Franklin quote makes no sense in this debate.

 

What essential liberty? The liberty of a controlling man to force his women to conceal their faces?

Ah, back to the forcing argument eh, you change tack so often you resemble a small sailing boat.

The essential liberty to wear what clothing you like. If you have a complaint about women being forced to wear something then argue to ban high heels and mini skirts.

 

Or the liberty of the woman to choose not to?

Yes, that freedom to choose that you want to remove.

 

Perhaps you are a mind reader, and know that every burka clad woman who is denied normal day to day human contact, and is forced to conceal any individuality which she may have is happy about it?

Perhaps you are a mind reader and no that not one single women chooses to wear a burka voluntarily?

 

It's you who is suggesting removing a freedom, despite your desperate reasoning to try to claim that you're solving oppression (by creating oppression).

[SavannahP]

Individuals differ but groups share common traits. We are judging the group not individuals where there will always be examples of people who do not comply with the generalisation. Should we have not bombed Germany during WWII because not all Germans were Nazi's? Generalisations are inevitable and are not rendered irrelevant by the fact that they do not work at individual level.

 

 

 

I proposed a reason for growing intolerance i.e. there are real issues we are suffering that should not be tolerated and this is compounded by the fact that the community from which these issues stem have themselves a bad track record of respecting other peoples freedoms and rights. I suggest that the intolerance is not entirely unjustified and, whether you agree with that statement or not, the fact remains that telling people to stay tolerant is not effective.

 

If you take your crime analogy then it is no different to someone pointing out that you cannot reduce crime by simply telling criminals not to be criminal. If you want to reduce crime then you have to tackle the root causes that lead to criminality e.g. poverty, drug abuse, abuse during childhood, lack of opportunity, lack of education etc.

 

If growing intolerance towards Muslims is to be reversed then the root causes need to be addressed. We need to see extremism in check, the terrorism threat subside, grooming issues addressed and respect for rights and freedoms reciprocated. Saying these are no excuses will not stop the growing feelings of intolerance any more than saying poverty is no excuse for criminality will stop people with no money turning to crime. This is the reality whether people like it or not.

 

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 09:10 ----------

 

 

It's you who is suggesting removing a freedom, despite your desperate reasoning to try to claim that you're solving oppression (by creating oppression).

 

oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

 

Banning everyone from entering public places with their face concealed wouldn't be prolonged cruel or unjust treatment so its not oppression, forcing someone to wear the burka when ever they leave the house would be prolonged cruel or unjust treatment so is oppression.

 

So no one has suggested replacing oppression with oppression.

[L00b]

You don't think they'll oppress and bully in different ways?

I'm quietly confident that they will, and further relevant legislation may be enacted, if and as needed (there's plenty of legislation addressing marital (and other-) abuse in France already).

 

In the meantime, their WAGs will at least be freed from having to go about their business in public dressed like fabric condoms, and their parading as walking advertisements for radical Islam will have ceased.

 

Incidentally, I'm not hearing a whole lot of enduring protests from the non-trivial Muslim population in France (4.7m, versus the UK's 2.8m) since the ban was enacted there 3 years ago. In this respect, it's not as if France is bereft of liberal thinkers, controversy-courters and ambulance-chasing human right lawyers, or if the national press is suppressed, so feel free to draw conclusions as to why that could be (...or not, as I don't particularly care tbh).

Edited November 5, 2014 by L00b

[harvey19]

.................................

[monkey104]

Are you really that obtuse? How many times do you have to have it explained?

 

The myth that everyone could wear a burka is ridiculous. If everyone began covering their face it would be banned, it would be classed as obstructing the police in the execution of their duties, and that would be correct.

 

Anyone is entitled to wear what they want within reason, concealing the face is not 'within reason', it dehumanizes the person behind the mask, no friendliness can be exchanged, no acknowledgment that a fellow human being is present can be shown, it is alienating.

 

You say there is no requirement to be friendly to anyone, no there isn't, but once again, that should be down to personal choice.

 

The choice of these women has been effectively removed hasn't it?

 

As for my Muslim friends, those that I have discussed it with think burkas should be banned, they believe that in the most part the women are given no choice and that it reflects badly on the whole Muslim community as certain people 'tar them all with the same brush'.

 

How would it be classed as obstruction?

Could you please tell me the Act, year and section for this as I feel I may be missing something.

You don't need to see their face for them to obstruct.

If they have committed an offence and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect they have then they can still detain them.

If they are wilfully obstructing an officer they can be detained without the need to see a face.

If they have committed a minor offence and the matter can be dealt with at a later date and the officer suspects that the person is not giving their correct details, once again they can be detained.

Any other issues regarding dress and identity can be resolved therein.

[mjw47]

 

How would it be classed as obstruction?

Could you please tell me the Act, year and section for this as I feel I may be missing something.

You don't need to see their face for them to obstruct.

If they have committed an offence and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect they have then they can still detain them.

If they are wilfully obstructing an officer they can be detained without the need to see a face.

If they have committed a minor offence and the matter can be dealt with at a later date and the officer suspects that the person is not giving their correct details, once again they can be detained.

Any other issues regarding dress and identity can be resolved therein.

 

Seriously? Are you incapable of seeing the complete nonsense in what you are saying?

 

Once again for the hard of understanding.

 

This country has the most comprehensive CCTV system in the world, it is used extensively by the Police and Security services to deal with crime and terrorism.

 

In your post at 396 you stated that the 'one camera for every eleven people' was a myth, you were wrong, it's a fact.

 

This shows you do not fully understand what you are on about.

 

Simple easy question for you.

 

Given the current use of CCTV, and the Governments continued multi Billion spend on these systems, do you believe that they would accept millions of the general public suddenly deciding to walk about wearing a full face disguise?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

And yes, you definitely are missing something. You appear to be suffering under the illusion that the laws of this country are set in stone, and cannot be amended abolished or added to.

 

A temporary anti mask legislation was brought in in 2011 to be applied during the UK anti austerity protests.

 

The government can enact just about any legislation that it wants to.

 

So, yes or no?

[Cyclone]

There is no law against concealing your face. You are talking rubbish. Concealing your face is not obstruction of the police, it is not a crime.

 

You keep making up rubbish to try to support the earlier rubbish that you've asserted.

 

Whilst legislation CAN be enacted. If it HASN'T been enacted, then it's NOT A CRIME. That's how it works. You can't make up a future crime on the basis that legislation MIGHT be enacted.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 11:14 ----------

 

I'm quietly confident that they will, and further relevant legislation may be enacted, if and as needed (there's plenty of legislation addressing marital (and other-) abuse in France already).

 

In the meantime, their WAGs will at least be freed from having to go about their business in public dressed like fabric condoms, and their parading as walking advertisements for radical Islam will have ceased.

But the ones that want to wear the burka will NOT be free to do so.

So the government has "freed" some women, at the price of oppressing others.

Slow hand clap for that.

[monkey104]

Seriously? Are you incapable of seeing the complete nonsense in what you are saying?

 

Once again for the hard of understanding.

 

This country has the most comprehensive CCTV system in the world, it is used extensively by the Police and Security services to deal with crime and terrorism.

 

In your post at 396 you stated that the 'one camera for every eleven people' was a myth, you were wrong, it's a fact.

 

This shows you do not fully understand what you are on about.

 

Simple easy question for you.

 

Given the current use of CCTV, and the Governments continued multi Billion spend on these systems, do you believe that they would accept millions of the general public suddenly deciding to walk about wearing a full face disguise?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

And yes, you definitely are missing something. You appear to be suffering under the illusion that the laws of this country are set in stone, and cannot be amended abolished or added to.

 

A temporary anti mask legislation was brought in in 2011 to be applied during the UK anti austerity protests.

 

The government can enact just about any legislation that it wants to.

 

So, yes or no?

 

You obviously didn't read my reply correctly! Section 60aa Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994( It wasn't legislated for in 2011. How quick do you think our government works?)allows a local inspector to order face coverings to be removed during a public order situation, for a 24 hour period, which is what the austerity protests were.

These decisions are not taken lightly and, remember the magic word? Justification has to be met. Oh heck! I'm just repeating myself for you.

Stop reading Orwell for gods sake. You will send yourself to an early grave.

Do YOU understand?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[mjw47]

You obviously didn't read my reply correctly! Section 60aa Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994( It wasn't legislated for in 2011. How quick do you think our government works?)allows a local inspector to order face coverings to be removed during a public order situation, for a 24 hour period, which is what the austerity protests were.

These decisions are not taken lightly and, remember the magic word? Justification has to be met. Oh heck! I'm just repeating myself for you.

Stop reading Orwell for gods sake. You will send yourself to an early grave.

Do YOU understand?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

Question, Those who were arrested during the process, were they also charged with failing to adhere to the mask ban also?

 

As for repeating yourself ,Jesus H Christ you should be sat where I am.

 

NOW nice attempt at deflection, answer the question, would the general public be allowed to decide to cover their faces enmasse?