Reply to: Banning of Burqa - Good or bad?

[ecuagirl75]

I'm all for the Woman's right movement, liberation and all, but we always need to let people decide on their own what's right for them. No one should have the right to tell anyone how to live their lives, most of all the government.

[Rantor]

The proposed law here is highly unusual in that it is the only thing that the Flemish and the Frenchists have managed to agree on in recent memory. Bit of a moot point anyway as the government has just collapsed….again….and the PM has resigned…….again.

[Mich the Tester]

I find that women wearing the burqa is offensive as a man wearing Ku Klux Klan attire. Some friends of mine are Muslim, (Turkish, Iranian, Nigerian and Pakistani ) . They tell me that they are amazed that such extreme Muslims are allowed in the country in the first place. Ether the woman wearing the burqa is forced to do or she is so extreme and wants to make a statement. The burqa was banned in Iran prior to the mad mullahs taking over and is banned in public buildings in Turkey. It appears that certain Muslims are too extreme for their own country and therefore they have taken refuge in the UK.

Yes, but that doesn’t make a case for banning the burqa in Britain. If anything, it makes the case for allowing it to demonstrate that Britain is a free country. However, this should also be balanced by protecting the right of others to take the piss out of religious nuttiness and criticize religious beliefs and rituals at any opportunity (so long as this does not result in physical harm to the ‘pisstakee’), instead of introducing PC laws about not offending anybody.

[Paddy]

I find that women wearing the burqa is offensive as a man wearing Ku Klux Klan attire. Some friends of mine are Muslim, (Turkish, Iranian, Nigerian and Pakistani ) . They tell me that they are amazed that such extreme Muslims are allowed in the country in the first place. Ether the woman wearing the burqa is forced to do or she is so extreme and wants to make a statement. The burqa was banned in Iran prior to the mad mullahs taking over and is banned in public buildings in Turkey. It appears that certain Muslims are too extreme for their own country and therefore they have taken refuge in the UK.

[northernladuk]

But common sense is never enshrined in law, all that matters is what the law says (haven't we been here before?).

Technically you are correct once the law has been involved. There is discretion and common sense applied at the time of deciding whether or not to take it down a legal path. The arresting officer can decided whether to intervene based on the situation. The CPS or whatever they have over there can look at it and decide wether there is a case to answer and if it is in the public interest. Based on this I would say the common sense element is very alive and well.

[lilelvis2000]

For identity purposes I think banning anything that covers the face is a good idea. But I would not stop anyone from wearing what they want to wear - within limits.

The Burqa is not a relegious garment - though some looney Imams try and push it that way. I believe it goes back to arab pre-islam culture when there were rogues who would invade camps and take the women.

I still don't like women to wear it. But I have heard of some muslim converts wearing it to avoid stares from non-muslim men. So I can understand from that perspective.

[meridian]

Again... think about the reasoning behind the law. There is a common sense element to all this you know..

While you are doing your own thing then fine. As soon as you have to communicate with another person you can reveal your identity and then everyone is happy.

But common sense is never enshrined in law, all that matters is what the law says (haven't we been here before?).

If the wording of the law is that it is illegal to conceal your identity in a public place if interacting with others, then the exact interpretation of the law is that the statue will fall foul of it and the chap in a balaclava will be fine.

I agree though with your previous comment, if we don't know exactly what the proposed law is then it's very easy to cherrypick examples to fit an agenda.

[Mich the Tester]

How about people with facial deformities who may wish to hide their faces? Would the elephant man have been caught out by such a law?

[northernladuk]

Does anyone know what the proposed law actually says?

Would it be illegal for, say, those statue street performers?
A hen party on the razz?
Hallowe'en kids?
Motorcyclists with full face helmets?
Cyclists wearing helmets, shades, and smog protectors?
A perfectly innocent chap wearing a balaclava because it's a bit nippy out?

Again... think about the reasoning behind the law. There is a common sense element to all this you know..

While you are doing your own thing then fine. As soon as you have to communicate with another person you can reveal your identity and then everyone is happy.

[gingerjedi]

Does anyone know what the proposed law actually says?

Would it be illegal for, say, those statue street performers?
A hen party on the razz?
Hallowe'en kids?
Motorcyclists with full face helmets?
Cyclists wearing helmets, shades, and smog protectors?
A perfectly innocent chap wearing a balaclava because it's a bit nippy out?

AFAIK in the UK motorcyclists are required to remove their helmets in banks etc, I've only ever seen IRA terrorists and bank robbers in movies wearing full face balaclava's.

[northernladuk]

Damn. It is complicated.

I was compelled to wear a specific uniform at school and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

There are plenty of circumstances where regulated dress makes perfect sense.

But when people are walking down the street going about their every day lives it is noone else's business.

But you are wrong. When that person is going about their business it will often include communication with other people and when they have their identity concealed it becomes the business of the other person as well who is at a distinct and often uncomfortable disadvantage hence the reason for the law. The law is to benefit the person having to deal with a covered face not the person wearing it.

It is too easy, as we can see from the thread title for people to pick little bits of a law i.e. name burka's when it applies to all manner of face wear and to talk about walking down the street. If you are going to have a reasonable debate you have to look at the whole thinking behind the law and what it covers else we would never get to the end of it.

[meridian]

Does anyone know what the proposed law actually says?

Would it be illegal for, say, those statue street performers?
A hen party on the razz?
Hallowe'en kids?
Motorcyclists with full face helmets?
Cyclists wearing helmets, shades, and smog protectors?
A perfectly innocent chap wearing a balaclava because it's a bit nippy out?

[gingerjedi]

A bit off topic but:

How do women who cover themselves from head to toe get sufficient vitamin D? Couple that with a combination of dark skin and northern European weather and you're asking for trouble.

Rickets will be the next health epidemic to sweep the UK, mark my words. :rolleyes

[VectraMan]

I think you will find that being naked in public is not an offence, they get done for causing a nuisance or a breach of the peace.

Right I'm off down the high street to give it a try.

[cailin maith]

Ah, the joys of snorkeling with a periscope!