Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

France Bans The Burqa

Page 10 of 14 [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

13 Apr 2011, 6:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Because someone who enters a bank wearing a mask in a secular country most likely IS a bank robber.
Wearing a burqa is in contrast NOT a reason to suspect someone is a terrorist,
and if they were, I'm pretty sure the triggers will work regardless of headgear.



Anyone with sufficient Q'ran rolling around in their heads is a potential terrorist.

ruveyn


Not following how your bigotry negates the rights of Muslims....


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

13 Apr 2011, 6:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Because someone who enters a bank wearing a mask in a secular country most likely IS a bank robber.
Wearing a burqa is in contrast NOT a reason to suspect someone is a terrorist,
and if they were, I'm pretty sure the triggers will work regardless of headgear.



Anyone with sufficient Q'ran rolling around in their heads is a potential terrorist.

ruveyn


No, they are not.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

13 Apr 2011, 6:31 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sometimes, the hijab doesn't interfere with other sexy clothings:

Image


I wonder if there are any Islamic Dress Fail Blogs.... just joking. She does look pretty though.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

13 Apr 2011, 6:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Because someone who enters a bank wearing a mask in a secular country most likely IS a bank robber.
Wearing a burqa is in contrast NOT a reason to suspect someone is a terrorist,
and if they were, I'm pretty sure the triggers will work regardless of headgear.



Anyone with sufficient Q'ran rolling around in their heads is a potential terrorist.

ruveyn


The same can be said of any written text in book form. Knowledge of the Q'ran is not the one & only factor that classes a person a potential terrorist.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Apr 2011, 8:51 pm

An English libertarian blogger by the name of The Quiet Man has it right here:

Blogger "The Quiet Man" wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the burka I think it's an idiotic piece of desert wear and class it as a look at me I'm much more holier than thou statement by the wearer, a sign of mental insecurity of the male involved or both. But I wouldn't take away the right of someone to chance rickets due to vitamin D deficiency away from them, I'd actually empower the rest of us instead. I'd empower the right of any business or government building to say you cannot come in here with your face shielded, I'd remove (in the name of equality) any activity that panders to separation and non integration such as blacking out windows at swimming pools, generally just empower people to make life for someone who wears one of those garments not worth the effort of donning it. Same as I'd remove translation services from all government depts, you come here, you speak English, Welsh or Gaelic (and braille/large print editions), no other translations given, you cannot speak or read the language? Provide your own translator at your cost.


Which I think is basically right. You can wear your niqab if you like but we will show our disapproval if you do so by empowering all shops, post offices, banks, public buildings, airports or indeed almost any other public place aside from the street to refuse entry to anyone wearing a face-covering veil. Shop owners catering especially to South Asians can choose to allow your shrouds but everyone else can be similarly empowered to not allow you to enter.

Simple.



Last edited by Tequila on 13 Apr 2011, 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

13 Apr 2011, 8:53 pm

Tequila wrote:
An English libertarian blogger by the name of The Quiet Man has it right here:

Blogger "The Quiet Man" wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the burka I think it's an idiotic piece of desert wear and class it as a look at me I'm much more holier than thou statement by the wearer, a sign of mental insecurity of the male involved or both. But I wouldn't take away the right of someone to chance rickets due to vitamin D deficiency away from them, I'd actually empower the rest of us instead. I'd empower the right of any business or government building to say you cannot come in here with your face shielded, I'd remove (in the name of equality) any activity that panders to separation and non integration such as blacking out windows at swimming pools, generally just empower people to make life for someone who wears one of those garments not worth the effort of donning it. Same as I'd remove translation services from all government depts, you come here, you speak English, Welsh or Gaelic (and braille/large print editions), no other translations given, you cannot speak or read the language? Provide your own translator at your cost.


Which I think is basically right. You can wear your niqab if you like but we will show our disapproval if you do so by barring entrance to our shops, post offices, banks, public buildings, airports where you wear your garment. Shop owners catering especially to South Asians can choose to allow your shrouds but everyone else can be similarly empowered to not allow you to enter.

Simple.


This



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

13 Apr 2011, 8:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Bethie wrote:

Because someone who enters a bank wearing a mask in a secular country most likely IS a bank robber.
Wearing a burqa is in contrast NOT a reason to suspect someone is a terrorist,
and if they were, I'm pretty sure the triggers will work regardless of headgear.



Anyone with sufficient Q'ran rolling around in their heads is a potential terrorist.

ruveyn
Well it's not gonna matter after they blow themselves up :roll:.

Seriously, there's much bigger threats than some brown boogey(women?). If you're gonna be right on their asses, you're gonna let other threats slip through (*cough* Timothy McVeigh *cough*). Also it's obviously bigoted and motivated by fear mongering. Besides removing articles of clothing that covers the face is supposed to be a private policy for places that need to identify you by your face, there's no need for it to be a public policy. I would still like to know how they conducted this. Like did they ask questions and check for brain activity? Show pictures? etc.. etc...



cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

13 Apr 2011, 9:08 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Besides removing articles of clothing that covers the face is supposed to be a private policy for places that need to identify you by your face, there's no need for it to be a public policy.


Okay. But what if you're a shop owner. And you feel uncomfortable having patrons in your store who have their faces covered. And you ask them to leave because of it (burqa, ski mask, phatom of the opera mask, whatever).

If it is not public policy, how would the shop owner be able to ask someone in a niqab to leave without the threat of a lawsuit or, potentially worse, a media frenzy over the story of the awful, intolerant, bigoted shop owner? It seems to me that the line between "private policies" and "public policies" is blurred.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service." Seems okay to me.
How do you think "No shirt, no face, no service" would fly? And really, what's the difference?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Apr 2011, 9:14 pm

cave_canem wrote:
And you feel uncomfortable having patrons in your store who have their faces covered. And you ask them to leave because of it (burqa, ski mask, phatom of the opera mask, whatever).


Or, of course, the obvious other implication in that people who are masked (people wearing niqabs, balaclavas, Halloween/Scream masks, motorcycle helmets, hoodies) will not show on CCTV. I dislike CCTV here in Britain due to the ludicrously excessive and ultimately ineffective way by which it is applied. That said, I do live in modern Britain and if I wish to stay living in it I have to show my face when I go into a shop or they won't let me in.

Why should someone (it's nearly impossible to tell whether it's a man or a woman inside!) wearing a niqab be any different?



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

13 Apr 2011, 9:17 pm

cave_canem wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Besides removing articles of clothing that covers the face is supposed to be a private policy for places that need to identify you by your face, there's no need for it to be a public policy.


Okay. But what if you're a shop owner. And you feel uncomfortable having patrons in your store who have their faces covered. And you ask them to leave because of it (burqa, ski mask, phatom of the opera mask, whatever).

If it is not public policy, how would the shop owner be able to ask someone in a niqab to leave without the threat of a lawsuit or, potentially worse, a media frenzy over the story of the awful, intolerant, bigoted shop owner? It seems to me that the line between "private policies" and "public policies" is blurred.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service." Seems okay to me.
How do you think "No shirt, no face, no service" would fly? And really, what's the difference?


from the UK about dress codes & supermarkets
http://www.inquisitr.com/38132/jedi-tos ... arket-dbp/
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/8 ... _shoppers/



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

13 Apr 2011, 9:23 pm

cave_canem wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Besides removing articles of clothing that covers the face is supposed to be a private policy for places that need to identify you by your face, there's no need for it to be a public policy.


Okay. But what if you're a shop owner. And you feel uncomfortable having patrons in your store who have their faces covered. And you ask them to leave because of it (burqa, ski mask, phatom of the opera mask, whatever).

If it is not public policy, how would the shop owner be able to ask someone in a niqab to leave without the threat of a lawsuit or, potentially worse, a media frenzy over the story of the awful, intolerant, bigoted shop owner? It seems to me that the line between "private policies" and "public policies" is blurred.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service." Seems okay to me.
How do you think "No shirt, no face, no service" would fly? And really, what's the difference?
It is a privately owned store, which makes it private policy. In buildings owned by the Government, the policy should pertain to those specific buildings not all public areas.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Apr 2011, 9:30 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
]It is a privately owned store, which makes it private policy.


I can tell you now that if any private store did decide to enact such a policy in the current climate, they would be accused of all kinds of horrible things by both the far-left and extremist Muslims and it's likely that their shop would be attacked/vandalised/torched and the employees beaten and harassed. That's aside from the media frenzy. It's just not worth the bother.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

13 Apr 2011, 9:34 pm

Tequila wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
]It is a privately owned store, which makes it private policy.


I can tell you now that if any private store did decide to enact such a policy in the current climate, they would be accused of all kinds of horrible things by both the far-left and extremist Muslims and it's likely that their shop would be attacked/vandalised/torched. It's just not worth the bother.


Plus if a sutation like that happend in the UK, our press with have a field day with it.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

13 Apr 2011, 9:36 pm

I mentioned that in my edited post.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

14 Apr 2011, 7:57 am

cave_canem wrote:
Tequila wrote:
An English libertarian blogger by the name of The Quiet Man has it right here:

Blogger "The Quiet Man" wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the burka I think it's an idiotic piece of desert wear and class it as a look at me I'm much more holier than thou statement by the wearer, a sign of mental insecurity of the male involved or both. But I wouldn't take away the right of someone to chance rickets due to vitamin D deficiency away from them, I'd actually empower the rest of us instead. I'd empower the right of any business or government building to say you cannot come in here with your face shielded, I'd remove (in the name of equality) any activity that panders to separation and non integration such as blacking out windows at swimming pools, generally just empower people to make life for someone who wears one of those garments not worth the effort of donning it. Same as I'd remove translation services from all government depts, you come here, you speak English, Welsh or Gaelic (and braille/large print editions), no other translations given, you cannot speak or read the language? Provide your own translator at your cost.


Which I think is basically right. You can wear your niqab if you like but we will show our disapproval if you do so by barring entrance to our shops, post offices, banks, public buildings, airports where you wear your garment. Shop owners catering especially to South Asians can choose to allow your shrouds but everyone else can be similarly empowered to not allow you to enter.

Simple.


This


Bit like the "No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish "policy in the seventies.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

14 Apr 2011, 8:24 am

1870s perhaps?

a) You weren't around in the 1970s, and from the people who lived during those times have told me (like my mum) there were never any signs up like that. You'd probably have to be looking pre-World War II to find signs like that here in the UK, if they ever existed at all.

b) This isn't anything to do with religion or culture. It is an item of clothing that is not mentioned in the Quran. It is a divisive, hateful, misogynistic piece of desert wear that will cause conflict anywhere in the Western world. This is not about the hijab - a headscarf - which is mentioned in the Quran. I have absolutely no issues with Muslims in general, or their desire to follow their religion as long as they don't use it as an excuse to cause conflict. Much like any other religion, in fact.

c) Muslims want to wear shapeless garments that show nothing but the eyes? Fine. They are exercising their civil liberties to wear what they like. In that case many shops, bakeries, pharmacies, state-funded AND private hospitals, airports, supermarkets, restaurants and caféterias can also exercise their liberty to bar anyone from private property for covering their face. Or not. I think that's a fair trade-off.