Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

[mjw47]

Yes well in Turkey I think the burka is banned in some public areas, or if not banned, discouraged.

 

In spite of my own feelings regarding face to face communication, i wouldn't wish to see a ban imposed here, as in France. Though I gather the majority of Muslims living there don't have any objection to the ban which they probably wouldn't have here if a ban was imposed.

 

If a Muslim country can ban/discourage the burka then why can't a Christian/Secular country do the same?

 

Hiding your face whilst talking to another person is completely against our culture.

 

On occasions when I have got into conversation with someone whilst I have been wearing sunglasses I have removed them so that the other person can look me in the eye.

 

That is normal in our society, being able to assess the other persons reaction to your comments and emotions is considered to be necessary in any verbal communication.

 

France have got it right, in order not to be accused of bias they have brought in laws that are equal across all religions.

 

Whilst the majority of the French are Catholic the country bases it's policy on 'freedom of conscience' which in my opinion is admirable.

 

No religious artifacts of any religion are allowed in schools and ostentatious displays of religious icons are barred.

 

This means that equality is ensured and no group can complain that they are being discriminated against.

 

We should follow suit.

 

---------- Post added 27-10-2014 at 23:19 ----------

 

You're consistently trying to derail the thread, it's about the acceptability of non Muslims wearing the burka if they choose to do so.

 

The whys and wherefores of burka wearing is none of my business, whether they're Muslims or not, consequently I'm not forming any judgements on their reasons for doing so (or not).

 

And you have lost the argument. You know it, I know it, and anyone else who has been bothered to read our posts knows it.

 

What you needed to do, in order to have retained any semblance of credibility, was to have stuck to the 'Burka Wearing' and only the 'Burka Wearing' from the first post onward in which you replied to me.

 

But you didn't, did you?

 

You chose to get into a discussion regarding the views of my newsagent and the reasons why Muslim women wear the burka.

 

You were unable to respond to my last post regarding why Muslim women wear the burka and so you made a pathetic attempt to step back and claim that it was always about the OP.

 

What happened to ' Some people attach a certain amount of significance to '?

 

The burka is imposed upon Muslim women by pathetic misogynist men who believe in their souls that they are inferior, and therefore require someone to look down upon.

 

Other, more reasonable and intelligent Muslims have little problem living in the real world, where most men accept that not only are women equal, they are are mighty fine thing.

[redwhine]

Irregardless,

[Cyclone]

If a Muslim country can ban/discourage the burka then why can't a Christian/Secular country do the same?

Because it's inconsistent with our views about personal freedom.

 

Hiding your face whilst talking to another person is completely against our culture.

So we should ban motorcycle helmets and balaclava's then.

 

On occasions when I have got into conversation with someone whilst I have been wearing sunglasses I have removed them so that the other person can look me in the eye.

Good for you.

 

That is normal in our society, being able to assess the other persons reaction to your comments and emotions is considered to be necessary in any verbal communication.

 

France have got it right, in order not to be accused of bias they have brought in laws that are equal across all religions.

I haven't studied the French law, but will it mean I can't cover my face whilst skiing in the French alps? Because if not, then it sounds rather hypocritical.

 

Whilst the majority of the French are Catholic the country bases it's policy on 'freedom of conscience' which in my opinion is admirable.

 

No religious artifacts of any religion are allowed in schools and ostentatious displays of religious icons are barred.

Schools are not public places, so not really the same.

 

This means that equality is ensured and no group can complain that they are being discriminated against.

 

We should follow suit.

By banning religious icons in school? What's that got to with this thread?

[L00b]

Because it's inconsistent with our views about personal freedom.

Personal freedom in France (and most other secular democratic countries) is not the free-for-all that most pundits in these debates seem to believe.

 

Personal freedom is codified along this logic: "La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres" (one's freedom stops where the freedom of others begins). Ponder that one a bit before replying. Hint: it's generally about respect.

I haven't studied the French law, but will it mean I can't cover my face whilst skiing in the French alps? Because if not, then it sounds rather hypocritical.

All hypocritical that it may be, it is, in its context, entirely right, morally and culturally.

 

And that's very probably the reason why France is far from being the only country with anti-Burka legislation. France also bans the wearing of SS uniforms, btw. Just throwing that one in for added context (it's in keeping with the bit above about 'freedoms').

Schools are not public places, so not really the same.

I don't know how you define state schools in the UK, but in France state schools are public (as in, the contrary of private, and that's the relevant sense in the legal context of the 'ban'). Edited October 28, 2014 by L00b

[RootsBooster]

The logic should be quite clear to anyone who understands logic.

An understanding of logic like this?...

To you maybe but to Muslims generally, the clothing is part of their religion.

 

Stop being so ignorant.

No it's not, you are the one who is displaying ignorance here.

 

So it's not a religious Item, I agree.

Wait though...

France have got it right, in order not to be accused of bias they have brought in laws that are equal across all religions.

 

Whilst the majority of the French are Catholic the country bases it's policy on 'freedom of conscience' which in my opinion is admirable.

 

No religious artifacts of any religion are allowed in schools and ostentatious displays of religious icons are barred.

So now it is a religious item?

And you have lost the argument. You know it, I know it, and anyone else who has been bothered to read our posts knows it.

 

What you needed to do, in order to have retained any semblance of credibility, was to have stuck to the 'Burka Wearing' and only the 'Burka Wearing' from the first post onward in which you replied to me.

...well it's gonna be pretty hard for him to win an argument with the type of 'logic' and credibility you have

[janie48]

 

Given the nature of the thread that view is irrelevant, since we're discussing whether non Muslims (who presumably have no religious reason to do so) should be allowed to wear the burka.

But there is a video link in the OP which explains why that Australian campaign group were wearing the burka, they want the burka banned there.

So interest in whether the burka should be banned here, and making comparisons with the law in other countries is quite relevant to the discussion.

[Cyclone]

Personal freedom in France (and most other secular democratic countries) is not the free-for-all that most pundits in these debates seem to believe.

 

Personal freedom is codified along this logic: "La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres" (one's freedom stops where the freedom of others begins). Ponder that one a bit before replying. Hint: it's generally about respect.

Which freedom is more important, someones freedom to wear what they want, or the freedom of someone else to dictate what is acceptable dress?

It seems quite clear to me that in general the state does not (and should not) dictate how people choose to dress.

All hypocritical that it may be, it is, in its context, entirely right, morally and culturally.

So I am allowed to wear a balaclava?

And so it quite clearly is discriminatory then since it doesn't ban general things such as "covering your face", but instead specific forms of clothing.

 

And that's very probably the reason why France is far from being the only country with anti-Burka legislation. France also bans the wearing of SS uniforms, btw. Just throwing that one in for added context (it's in keeping with the bit above about 'freedoms').

The freedom to supress ideas that the state doesn't like. Yes, I can see how that one is important.

I don't know how you define state schools in the UK, but in France state schools are public (as in, the contrary of private, and that's the relevant sense in the legal context of the 'ban').

 

I'm defining public as "an area that anyone can enter without restriction or challenge". Schools do not fit that criteria. If I go and walk into a school now (assuming I can even get in) the police will probably be called and I'll be ejected for trespass at the very least.

 

I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing after all that. Do you support the idea that the freedom of person A might include demanding that person B wear or not wear certain types of clothing, and that in this case of conflicting freedom, A supercedes B?

[mjw47]

An understanding of logic like this?...

 

 

So it's not a religious Item, I agree.

Wait though...

 

So now it is a religious item?

 

...well it's gonna be pretty hard for him to win an argument with the type of 'logic' and credibility you have

 

And another one who likes to argue over trivialities and lacks a basic understanding of logic.

 

The Burka is not mentioned in the Quran as being a requirement for Muslims.

 

Therefore, it is not a religious item by Islamic law.

 

However certain Muslims have chosen of their own volition to adopt the burka as a means of controlling their women and signaling in an unmissable way what religion they adhere to.

 

Therefore, whilst not being a religious item in any formal way recognised by the Quran it has become an overt declaration of a particular faith.

 

Therefore, the French, who appear to me to behave in a far more rational manner in these matters have rightly banned it.

 

Simple enough for you?

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2014 at 11:08 ----------

 

Because it's inconsistent with our views about personal freedom.

So we should ban motorcycle helmets and balaclava's then.

Good for you.

I haven't studied the French law, but will it mean I can't cover my face whilst skiing in the French alps? Because if not, then it sounds rather hypocritical.

Schools are not public places, so not really the same.

By banning religious icons in school? What's that got to with this thread?

 

Why is it inconsistent with our views?

 

We are not allowed to do anything we please in this country, there are laws limiting our freedoms as there are in all civilized countries.

 

Motorcycle helmets? Bad example there, motorcycle helmets have to be worn when riding a motorcycle it's the law.

 

Infringement of your freedom to ride with the wind in your hair right there.

 

As to wearing ski masks you appear to be struggling for relevant comparisons, covering your face for a limited amount of time for practical reasons can hardly be compared to wearing a face covering all day every day can it?

 

And the next time your skiing in France why don't you walk into the local bank wearing the mask and see what reception you get?

[L00b]

Which freedom is more important, someones freedom to wear what they want, or the freedom of someone else to dictate what is acceptable dress?

The freedom of the majority not to feel intimated, indisposed or otherwise threatened (however rightly or wrongly) by ostentatious (proselyte) displays of faith that run entirely anti-social and counter-culture.

It seems quite clear to me that in general the state does not (and should not) dictate how people choose to dress.

That's your personal opinion. Personally, I'm quite happy for France to 'enforce' secularity and, accessorily, ban the wearing of burkas and SS uniforms. So, er...now what?

So I am allowed to wear a balaclava?

The same as you're allowed to wear a burka in the comfort of your own home

And so it quite clearly is discriminatory then since it doesn't ban general things such as "covering your face", but instead specific forms of clothing.

I've quite clearly acknowledged the hypocritical nature of the measure, so I'm not quite sure why you're arguing this line with me?

 

I don't have a problem with it whatsoever, however hypocritical it is, so again, er...now what?

I'm defining public as "an area that anyone can enter without restriction or challenge". Schools do not fit that criteria. If I go and walk into a school now (assuming I can even get in) the police will probably be called and I'll be ejected for trespass at the very least.

You are misunderstanding the point entirely, so I'll belabour, for the avoidance of doubt: a state school in France is not a private property, it is a property of the State, and therefore classed as a public space (irrespective of access conditions), to the same extent as a Town hall, a Préfecture, the Social Services building, etc, <etc.> Which is how and why the ban applies to schools and all other such State premises in which people congregate at times for a purpose or another. The situation is entirely different for a private property (such as a private school), in which people can wear whatever they like.

Do you support the idea that the freedom of person A might include demanding that person B wear or not wear certain types of clothing, and that in this case of conflicting freedom, A supercedes B?

Absolutely. These are fundamental aspects of a secular society organised under civil law: you don't want people wandering about starkers, and there's laws about that; you don't want religious proselytes about, and there's laws about that too; you don't want extremist sympathisers wandering about in SS uniforms bringing back very painful memories to old people, and there's laws about that too <etc.> Edited October 28, 2014 by L00b

[Bonzo77]

Motorcycle helmets? Bad example there, motorcycle helmets have to be worn when riding a motorcycle it's the law.

 

Infringement of your freedom to ride with the wind in your hair right there.

 

I think you've missed the point there mate. I've seen motorcyclists paying for petrol with their helmets on and visor up. I've seen them walking round supermarkets like this too. Surely if the burqa is unacceptable, so is this?