burka ban in UK 1 step closer

[SeriousSam]

Imagine there was a recognised religion where women had to walk around naked and on a leash... do you imagine that would be allowed in public even if the women in question were happy for it to happen?

There is always a limit to tolerance, otherwise you have to allow anything. In this case security should not be hampered by someones attire, but I do agree that efforts should be made to find a way to reach a suitable compromise.

[jim]

Difference there is that they'd be breaking a law that was already in place, rather than being legal originally before being restricted with a new law.

[[GSV]Trig]

If they want to wear it that's fine, its entirely up to them (or there husbands, I dont know how it works).

BUT

They should be aware of the fact that in certain places like banks, airports etc they may be refused entry or asked to remove said garments for security reasons.

Anyone that wears it and refuses to remove it for said security reasons, they are the ones that create issues IMHO, theres a lot of "anti" muslim feelings since 911 and all they do by being awkward is fueling those issues..

[TooNice]

I am in line with those who think that there should not be a total ban, yet draw a line where security checks are involved. Even if we could implement other forms of security checks, I do not feel that we should be forced to adopt them, any more than we should be forced to build toilets to accommodate transvestites. It's probably as close to a middle ground as we can get.

[stytagm]

Tolerance and pragmatism.

For example, Airports already have sensible arrangements. People wearing the Burka, if they're uncomfortable removing it in public, can simply go into a private room with a female security officer where they can remove it in private without contravening their beliefs. I have no problem with this arrangement and it has absolutely zero impact on my airport experience.

I don't know if Banks etc are allowed to enforce similar requirements, but I'd hate it if a heavy handed law required them to, and hate it just as much if jobsworth bank staff on a power trip were allowed to enforce such things without discretion.

Maybe I'm coming across as more of a liberal hippy than I really am, but I'd be very uncomfortable with any new legistlation. Especially if, when the facts are scrutinised, you realise that it's to win the votes of Daily Mail readers, rather than to have any measurable effect on security.

[SeriousSam]

Difference there is that they'd be breaking a law that was already in place, rather than being legal originally before being restricted with a new law.

Clinging on to historical precedence is the reason some sections of our law are woefully out of date and illogical. It either has to be based on sound reasoning or we may as well have laws based on games of chance.

[Rob_B]

Imagine there was a recognised religion where women had to walk around naked and on a leash... do you imagine that would be allowed in public even if the women in question were happy for it to happen?<snip>

Where do I sign up??

[petrefax]

Tolerance and pragmatism.

For example, Airports already have sensible arrangements. People wearing the Burka, if they're uncomfortable removing it in public, can simply go into a private room with a female security officer where they can remove it in private without contravening their beliefs. I have no problem with this arrangement and it has absolutely zero impact on my airport experience.

ok, on principle i have nothing against this but

- how practical is it?
- how much will it cost?
- will it have a negative impact upon others?
- will it discriminate against anyone?

given the amount of additional security already in place at airports and the time it takes from checking in to actually being in a position to board a plane, and given the tight schedules in place for plane turnarounds, how much additional time is this going to take if every muslim woman passing through an airport wishes to visit a private room (which, by implementing this, all would have the opportunity to do) and how will this affect flights?

there are a number of possible solutions to this, for example, increasing the time people need to be at airports before their flight, scheduling extra staff to work during these periods or special desks for dealing with face-covered muslim women

but

option 1 - get to airports earlier
if i am told i have to be at an airport 4,5, 6 or more hours before my flight just to allow time for people who wish to cover their faces to enter a private room to show their face, this is making something that has nothing to do with me, my problem. i am being inconvenienced by someone esle's religious beleifs. i am sure if i spent long anough thinking about it i could build this into a reasonable case for persecution on religious grounds

option 2 - schedule more staff
more staff = higher wage bill. who do you think will be paying for this? that'll be us, the customers. and heaven forbid that anyone suggest those who are covering their faces and therefore causing the additional delays pay extra..that would be discrimination so would not be possible. once again, something that has nothing to do with me is being made my problem insofar as i am being asked to pay for a service which is specifically designed for people other than myself ie: musims (which i am not) and woman (again, which i am not)

option 3 - special queues for those who wish to keep their facescovered
this is discrimination, plain and simple, and won't be tolerated. if people can't be asked to remove their face coverings then they sure as hell can't be put into a "special" line. i would imagine those affected by this would be in uproar at being treated differently on account of their religious beleifs....and even if they weren't, i would be! i would insist on my own line specifically for grumpy 40 year-old left-handed aetheist welshmen who brazenly display their faces for all to see.

lastly, there's the question of discrimination. you mention going into a private room with a female member of staff

so...imagine that i'm a man who works at an airport as a security officer and there's a whole hatfull of overtime on the cards, everybody is coining it in....everyone, that is, who doesn't posess a penis......women only, men need not apply. i think i would be entirely justified in complaining to my employers at being discriminated against on account of my gender




is that what you want...cos that's what'll happen!




.

Difference there is that they'd be breaking a law that was already in place, rather than being legal originally before being restricted with a new law.

sorry dude - i have to pull you up on this one. new laws are implemented to deal with new situations, times change & we adapt methods to suit. that smacks of my least favourite phrase in the world "we do it this way because that's how we've always done it"

as members of this community, you and i are obviously both comfortable in embracing new technology, or to put it another way, "new ways of doing things" if you apply the "we've always doen it this way" logic to technology, you and i would be conversing...v..e..r..y..s..l...o..w..l..y. via a vax mainframe terminal

[Spud1]

I am against a total ban here - there are already far too many restrictions on UK life, and after all, we are /supposed/ to be a multi cultural, tolerant, secular country (contradiction in terms there I know), and adding yet another ban does not conform to that.

If we were still a Christian country then I would take a different view - but we have (Hopefully) moved on from that now, and a move like this would be a total backwards step.

I do think however that there are some legitimate security issues around the Burka and other religious garments that need to be considered. Taking the airport as an example, they should have to remove their Burka when going through security, but should be given two options imo.

1) Remove at the checkpoint in public view
2) Pay a surcharge and go to a private room to do so, accompanied by whoever is required (husband etc)
3) Not travel

There should be reasonable accommodations made for specific groups such as this, but any extra expense must be picked up by that person - otherwise it is totally unfair on every other person in the country who is not part of that religion. Of course this will likely be seen as religious discrimination etc etc but then isn't it also religious discrimination if the rest of the country has to pick up the bill? Be that bill in monetary cost or in lives..

At the end of the day I would defend peoples right to do whatever they want in their own personal space so long as it does not have a detrimental impact on anyone else..but the second that they cross that line, i'll fight to the death to prevent it.

[TAKTAK]

Whether it be for religious or nefarious purposes, full facial covering cause issues in the event of a problem.

If you're allowed to cover your face with a burka/other religious attire, why not a balaclava or motorcycle helmet (or a hood which doesn't cover the face anyway...), the same/more of the face is visible so why is it any different.

A rule for one person and a different rule for another... How is that possibly a tolerant society?

[jim]

sorry dude - i have to pull you up on this one. new laws are implemented to deal with new situations, times change & we adapt methods to suit. that smacks of my least favourite phrase in the world "we do it this way because that's how we've always done it"

as members of this community, you and i are obviously both comfortable in embracing new technology, or to put it another way, "new ways of doing things" if you apply the "we've always doen it this way" logic to technology, you and i would be conversing...v..e..r..y..s..l...o..w..l..y. via a vax mainframe terminal

I appreciate that, but it's not the point I'm making.

The reason that made-up "religion" would not be okay is because it goes against decency laws that we take as standard in this country.

Making laws specifically to ban something is a different situation altogether.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't make new laws, just pointing out that they aren't really comparable.

[stytagm]

ok, on principle i have nothing against this but

- how practical is it?
- how much will it cost?
- will it have a negative impact upon others?
- will it discriminate against anyone?
<snip>

option 1 - get to airports earlier
<snip>
option 2 - schedule more staff
<snip>
option 3 - special queues for those who wish to keep their facescovered
<snip>

lastly, there's the question of discrimination. you mention going into a private room with a female member of staff

so...imagine that i'm a man who works at an airport as a security officer and there's a whole hatfull of overtime on the cards, everybody is coining it in....everyone, that is, who doesn't posess a penis......women only, men need not apply. i think i would be entirely justified in complaining to my employers at being discriminated against on account of my gender

is that what you want...cos that's what'll happen!

That's already what is happening, and I don't have to turn up 4 hours early for my flights, My air fares are cheaper than they've ever been, and I assume your arguments about gender discrimination against staff where simply in the heat of the argument, and that you don't really believe something that silly. Do you think a suspected female drug smuggler has her cavity search done by a male security officer? Do you think she should? What if she's innocent, was it fair then?

In fairness to you, I concede there must be a cost implication, but it's evidently not outrageous when you can fly to Europe for under £30. The time and hassle of airport security is atrocious compared to say the 1960's, but we can blame the IRA (white Christians) in the 70's and 80's every bit as much as we can blame muslim terrorists since the millenium.

[stytagm]

That said, should it be fair to force a ban in banks, like they do with bike helmets or anything that obstructs the face?

If it was done sensibly, this would be the lesser evil, but rather than force a ban in banks, it might be better to allow banks to enforce/require it at their own discretion. I'm sure there are plenty of banks in areas with large populations of perfectly ordinary muslim families who don't want to annoy their customers with something like this.

The problem is, as this thread is demonstrating, it would be very difficult to do anything sensible, as many people are unable to think outside of absolutes and extremes. Just read articles about the same legislation in the Guradian and the Daily Mail, one person's draconiam destruction of liberty is another person's common sense law for the protection of decent ordinary people. Conversly one person's political correctness gone mad is the other's tolerant protection of people's cultures, rights and way of life.

The really irritating thing is that you never see any newspaper or media outlet (except maybe the BBC) reporting "politicians work hard to produce moderate, workable legislation to best solve a tricky problem in a way that doesn't offend the sensibilities of any segment of the british public".

Doesn't sell any papers.

[Saracen]

To me, this is about a balance of respect. It is quite clear that this form of dress is alien to most Western cultures, and yet out cultures are expected to be tolerant of a form of dress that is quite clearly an issue for a lot of people (and most likely, quite a few more that don't want to admit it for PC reasons). It also raisers quite a few practical problems, like the aforementioned security issues.

So as far as I'm concerned, where the issue is security, like airports, banks, or at the requirement of the police, then a face-covering comes off. Period. No exceptions, not for hoodies, not for bike helmets, not for scarves in the winter and not for burkas. And no naffing around with private rooms and female staff, either. That is not our way or our culture, so "when in Rome ...."

Next, at the very least, if people are going to be tolerant and permit those that wear burkas to do so despite it being so alien to our way of life, then we should also be tolerant of those that find it offensive and refuse to provide service to people wearing them. After all, tolerance is tolerance. So if a job is refused, or access to a bank premises, or service in a restaurant because it upsets other customers or the owners, then so be it.

I've given this a lot of thought over quite a long time, and personally, I'm of the opinion that this country has been quite tolerant enough, and I would absolutely support an outright ban. For once, the French got it right, though I always have preferred their model of a completely secular state.

[stytagm]

I always have preferred their model of a completely secular state.

Don't confuse the concept of a secular state with banning religion or enforced atheism, it sounds a little like you support the latter, which I'm sure you don't.*

PS - for the purposes of this debate, I'm an atheist white british male aged 30-40.

[Saracen]

Don't confuse the concept of a secular state with banning religion or enforced atheism, it sounds a little like you support the latter, which I'm sure you don't.*

PS - for the purposes of this debate, I'm an atheist white british male aged 30-40.

I don't support enforced atheism or to ban religions, no, but I do feel the state ought to pay far less lip-service to any religion, and in particular, be making a lot less exemptions from laws that apply to everyone else on religious grounds.

Hence my view ... if the burka is "religious" observance, then first, a lot of Muslims say it isn't, and I take their word for it. Second, from that secular point of view, I don't see religion as a good reason for a legal exemption. And if the reason for the burka is culture, then it's anti-culture from a UK perspective, so perhaps burka wearers ought to respect out culture rather than the other way round.