charmer Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 As I said its double standards, read my post again and you will see I'm on about freedom of expression which has been denied to the burka wearer... ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 18:50 ---------- Who said it was an attack on muslim women because I didn't? I did read your post. You seem to think that the Burkha was banned to stifle freedom of expression. I pointed out that it was not, it was banned for practical reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) As I said its double standards, read my post again and you will see I'm on about freedom of expression which has been denied to the burka wearer... It is a restriction on freedom of expression that is designed to promote social coherence and reduce fear. It applies to all facial coverings including the burka, balaclavas, hoods and helmets. It is a law that applies to all and religious freedom demands there are no exceptions on religious grounds. I'd be interested to know what do you think about the under reporting of reprisal attacks following the Paris attacks? Why do you think it is so? Is it right thing for the press to present a picture of unity even if there are growing signs of division? Is this a better tactic than talking about issues and looking for solutions or do you think that creates more division? Genuine questions. Edited January 13, 2015 by Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The choke hold incidents and police shootings have no connection to the situation in America in past years. These are isolated incidents completely unlike how millions of black Americans were second class citizens during that period. It may not be completely perfect still but things have come a long, long way in the meantime I can't argue with the essence of what you've said here. Things are definitely much, much better now than they were in my youth. Fact remains though that unrest within certain sections of the community seems to be growing. My apologies to the OP for going off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It is a restriction on freedom of expression that is designed to promote social coherence and reduce fear. It applies to all facial coverings including the burka, balaclavas, hoods and helmets. It is a law that applies to all and religious freedom demands there are no exceptions on religious grounds. I'd be interested to know what do you think about the under reporting of reprisal attacks following the Paris attacks? Why do you think it is so? Is it right thing for the press to present a picture of unity even if there are growing signs of division? Is this a better tactic than talking about issues and looking for solutions or do you think that creates more division? Genuine questions. Regardless of the reason they banned the burka the point is that a burka wearer is denied their freedom of expression which comes across as double standards. If they reported the reprisal attacks following the Paris attacks it could further inflame the situation into a tit for tat scenario and IMO that is why they are keeping schtum although the details of such attacks are available through other sources. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 19:43 ---------- I did read your post. You seem to think that the Burkha was banned to stifle freedom of expression. I pointed out that it was not, it was banned for practical reasons. The burka wearer is still denied their freedom of expression by the burka ban..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 What your view on someone entering a bank wearing a balaclava , or someone entering an off licence wearing a crash helmet or some other full face covering ? In that situation, it's not unreasonable to ask the wearer to remove it, if there's a good reason to. It would also be reaonable to ask a woman whose face is covered to show it, provided there's a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 My bold= Where was the freedom of expression when France banned the Burka? What about the burka wearers freedom of expression? It's double standards like this that are the problem as mentioned in this link= http://rt.com/politics/221671-kadyrov-chechnya-charlie-hebdo/ It doesn't really matter how much you squirm. There was a general ban on face coverings to protect society. The actions at Charlie Hebdo clearly demonstrate that those protections are needed. Just in case you missed it. Muslims wearing face coverings walked into the offices of a magazine and killed around a dozen people. You guys must have one insecure god if he requires cartoonists to be gunned down. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 19:45 ---------- In that situation, it's not unreasonable to ask the wearer to remove it, if there's a good reason to. It would also be reaonable to ask a woman whose face is covered to show it, provided there's a good reason. You mean like eascaping the CCTV on the Metro system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I came across an interesting thought experiment here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html?1421160931&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 ''Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"?'' What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It doesn't really matter how much you squirm. There was a general ban on face coverings to protect society. The actions at Charlie Hebdo clearly demonstrate that those protections are needed. Just in case you missed it. Muslims wearing face coverings walked into the offices of a magazine and killed around a dozen people. You guys must have one insecure god if he requires cartoonists to be gunned down. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 19:45 ---------- You mean like eascaping the CCTV on the Metro system? Selective freedoms when it suits are not acceptable and human terrorists killed these people and not any God. Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God in case you didn't realise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I came across an interesting thought experiment here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html?1421160931&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 ''Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"?'' What do you think? I think it depends whether you have the same regard for murderers as their victims. Do you? ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 19:50 ---------- Selective freedoms when it suits are not acceptable and human terrorists killed these people and not any God. Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God in case you didn't realise.... Do you think those terrorists are in heaven now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I came across an interesting thought experiment here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html?1421160931&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 ''Consider also the "thought experiment" offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the "unity rally" in Paris on 11 January "wearing a badge that said 'Je suis Chérif'" - the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. "How would the crowd have reacted?... Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?" Do you disagree with Klug's conclusion that the man "would have been lucky to get away with his life"?'' What do you think? I think I would slap the hypothetical man in the face with a wet Halibut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now