burka ban in UK 1 step closer

[j1979]

To me, this is about a balance of respect. It is quite clear that this form of dress is alien to most Western cultures

but the face veil was also alien to the vast majority of Muslim countries until recently, And i believe the term Burka relates to a full body covering, the jilbab being the body covering, the Hijarb being the head covering and the Niqab being the veil.

Lets not forget even the Hijab (just the head covering) is illegal in schools in not only France but Turkey too. And full face veils were unheard of in both Turkey and Egypt until recent years.

The fact the the face veil was not worn hardly anywhere (excluding Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran) until recently shows that, this garment is worn for 1 of 3 main reasons.

The extreme (Saudi version) of islam is on the rise.
The veil is worn as a badge of honour (Taliban sympathisers).
Another person forcing the person to wear it.

[stytagm]

Last one from me for today. I hate getting embroiled in these sorts of arguments with people I respect and like (or anyone) and I should know better by now than to rise to the bait.

The arugument that people visiting this country should respect our culture by not wearing the Burka is flawed. Just because my wife would cover her shoulders if she were to visit Dubai doesn't mean everyone who visits here should uncover their shoulders.

Similarly, I don't like taking my top off, even on the beach I'd rather keep a t-shirt on because I'm not confident displaying my scrawny torso to the public at large, it makes me feel very uncomfortable and self concious. If I want to eat an ice cream on a sunny sea front in England should I be forced to take my shirt off because that's the cultural norm? Compulsory speedos maybe? Let's face it no-one could hide a bomb in speedos, and can you tell me that you know there isn't a knife hidden down that bloke's baggy swim shorts? The beach is a security nightmare.

Whatever the reason muslim women weir a veil, and I admit many of those reasons are abhorrent suppresion of women's rights, legislating that they can't weir a veil is not the answer. Many of those women would feel just as self concious and uncomfortable without a veil as I would walking around London without a t-shirt, and forcing them to do so would simply be cruel and petty.

Security (identification) and communication are valid concerns, but why shouldn't we be accomodating and respectful when dealing with those concerns? Security (they might have bombs underneath) is not a realistic concern on the streets of this country, it's scaremongering.

Right, last of all, here's a very reassuring article from the BBC which thankfully shows that ministers seem to be forging a sensible path. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10674973 (don't worry, it's pretty short and only slightly boring).

[Barakka]

The extreme (Saudi version) of islam is on the rise.
The veil is worn as a badge of honour (Taliban sympathisers).
Another person forcing the person to wear it.

Or maybe.... and this is just throwing it out as a maybe... in previous years many of the women were staying indoors because they were immigrants into this country and felt intimidated by the reactions their choice of attire got when in public. But more recently we are talking about British born women who feel they have as much right as everyone else in this country to go out in public dressed how they want.

[jim]

Let's face it no-one could hide a bomb in speedos

Depends how big the package is really.

[j1979]

Or maybe.... and this is just throwing it out as a maybe... in previous years many of the women were staying indoors because they were immigrants into this country and felt intimidated by the reactions their choice of attire got when in public. But more recently we are talking about British born women who feel they have as much right as everyone else in this country to go out in public dressed how they want.

simply not true! The veil was not worn in any country bar Iran, Saudi and Afghanistan pre 1960. It's a modern thing. The vast majority Muslim women who wear the veil, are not following in the footsteps of their mothers.

[AGTDenton]

I think everyone is missing a trick here, designer burka's, they will sell like hot cakes.
"Limited celebrity edition. You bring the eyes, we bring the bodies"
"Finally look like Danny DeVito without piling on the pounds or shrinking, how about Arnold Schwarzenegger cancel that gym membership"

(£)_(£)

[GoNz0]

I think everyone is missing a trick here, designer burka's, they will sell like hot cakes.
"Limited celebrity edition. You bring the eyes, we bring the bodies"
"Finally look like Danny DeVito without piling on the pounds or shrinking, how about Arnold Schwarzenegger cancel that gym membership"

(£)_(£)

i would vote for a see through one

[petrefax]

Let's face it no-one could hide a bomb in speedos.

i beg to differ! what about that dude who tried to set fire to his nob on a US flight last xmas day

[ManniX]

France To Ban Masked Superheroes – UK To Follow?

[Fuzzed_out]

I personally think it's as absurd as Sikhs being allowed to ride motorcycles without a helmet (if they have a turban). Subsequently I have no real problem with the Burka other than from a security stand point, I don't like talking to people when I can't see their face so I just avoid talking to people that wear them, that's not a huge issue for me, airports and banks are though.

[j1979]

I personally think it's as absurd as Sikhs being allowed to ride motorcycles without a helmet (if they have a turban). Subsequently I have no real problem with the Burka other than from a security stand point, I don't like talking to people when I can't see their face so I just avoid talking to people that wear them, that's not a huge issue for me, airports and banks are though.

have you watching only fools and horses recently ?

[Rave]

While I agree with pretty much everything you have said....

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.

Erm....can we? Because I can't remember the IRA ever blowing up a plane, or even hijacking one for that matter. All this utter crap about not taking more than 100ml containers of fluid on in hand luggage- which I find quite incredibly infuriating, especially since the budget airlines started charging for check in luggage- came in after a plot by some Muslim terrorists.

But anyway. As an atheist and (inasmuch as I can be one, being male), a feminist, I think that Niqabs are more or less a tool of male oppression of, and subjugation of, women- and even where women willingly choose to wear one I find it fairly offensive to my beliefs, which is that I mostly don't entertain erotic fantasies about smartly dressed women I see in the street, and that if I do, it's a matter for my own conscience.

But far more importantly, as a liberal, I utterly hate the idea that it's the government's job to tell me what I can or can't do, wear, eat, drink etc. etc. if it doesn't harm anyone else.

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 our 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).

Why is it an issue for them? Because they're intolerant, possibly?

It also raisers quite a few practical problems, like the aforementioned security issues.

In this case there is a case for minimal, well worded, targeted legislation, not broad-brush idiocy. I wouldn't expect to be able to wear my full face motorcycle helmet into a bank, or through immigration control. I do expect to be able to wear it when I hop off my bike to get some cash out of an ATM- something which I apparently wouldn't be able to do under this Conservative idiot's bill.

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 ...."

O.K., I agree.

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 the Race Relations Act was a crock of crap was it? Because according to that argument we should be tolerant of people who hate black people, or gay people, and refuse them service.

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.

Nice. I daresay my brother's fiancee's aunt, who is currently sporting a headscarf because she's lost her hair through chemotherapy, might find it upsetting to be refused service because people disagreed with her choice of headwear- she's got enough on her plate dealing with a life-threatening illness while looking after two kids of 8 and 5. But hey- she's different, so screw her.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I'd like to see your draft of a piece of legislation that could neatly discriminate between Muslim headwear and all the other head coverings that people might wear for all manner of legitimate reasons. In fairness, you are an eloquent chap, so I hope you'll give it a go. I'll be particularly interested to see how you might allow me to wear the Rossignol neoprene face protector I bought on a particularly bitter skiing day, while I'm cruising the slopes of Aviemore, while still banning Muslim attire. It'd be a shame if I couldn't wear that, my beard goes awfully ginger when it's cold.

[Flash477]

I think everyone is missing a trick here, designer burka's, they will sell like hot cakes.
"Limited celebrity edition. You bring the eyes, we bring the bodies"
"Finally look like Danny DeVito without piling on the pounds or shrinking, how about Arnold Schwarzenegger cancel that gym membership"

(£)_(£)

You mean like this http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/str...e-9a66f8ef6fe7

[Saracen]

....

So the Race Relations Act was a crock of crap was it? Because according to that argument we should be tolerant of people who hate black people, or gay people, and refuse them service.

Nowhere did I say, or imply, anything of the sort. This is about a style of dress, and perhaps the symbolism it represents, not race or sexual orientation.

Nice. I daresay my brother's fiancee's aunt, who is currently sporting a headscarf because she's lost her hair through chemotherapy, might find it upsetting to be refused service because people disagreed with her choice of headwear- she's got enough on her plate dealing with a life-threatening illness while looking after two kids of 8 and 5. But hey- she's different, so screw her.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I'd like to see your draft of a piece of legislation that could neatly discriminate between Muslim headwear and all the other head coverings that people might wear for all manner of legitimate reasons. In fairness, you are an eloquent chap, so I hope you'll give it a go. I'll be particularly interested to see how you might allow me to wear the Rossignol neoprene face protector I bought on a particularly bitter skiing day, while I'm cruising the slopes of Aviemore, while still banning Muslim attire. It'd be a shame if I couldn't wear that, my beard goes awfully ginger when it's cold.

And you can knock that off, right the hell now. Your brother's fiances aunt, eh? My father died of cancer. My mother died of cancer 19 days after my father. We buried then simultaneously. My wife is, hopefully, recovering from cancer, though nothing's ever certain. My brother's first wife died of cancer, in her early 20s, and his second wife came out of hospital after a fairly major cancer operation just last week.

So DO NOT lecture me on cancer, and put words in my mouth attributing things to me that I did not say, because I am most flaming definately not in the mood for it.

I was talking about burkas, not headscarves.

And if you're reading anger in this post over that "Nice", then you're flaming well right. Never has any post on any forum got me as angry as that. I am incandescent at that remark. If that's the level of comment I can expect on HEXUS, then congratulations, because you've got me sitting here, right on the knife edge of leaving, and leaving permanently.

In fact, sod it, I'm not standing for that. Bye.

[format]

Saracen as unquestionably tragic as your personal circumstances evidently are, I think you've over-reacted a little bit here?

[Rave]

Nowhere did I say, or imply, anything of the sort. This is about a style of dress, and perhaps the symbolism it represents, not race or sexual orientation.

O.K. fine. What about facial tattoos or piercings? Or all-over tattoos? They're a style of dress that I daresay many people find offensive, but to their adherents they're a way of life. Should people who have made that life choice be freely discriminated against?

And you can knock that off, right the hell now. Your brother's fiances aunt, eh? My father died of cancer. My mother died of cancer 19 days after my father. We buried then simultaneously. My wife is, hopefully, recovering from cancer, though nothing's ever certain. My brother's first wife died of cancer, in her early 20s, and his second wife came out of hospital after a fairly major cancer operation just last week.

So DO NOT lecture me on cancer, and put words in my mouth attributing things to me that I did not say, because I am most flaming definately not in the mood for it.

Try reading my post again, then. I was not accusing you of being anti-cancer-sufferer, I was accusing you of being in favour of stupidly broad legislation that could adversely affect them. I guess in the 'familial cancer suffering' competition that it was not my intent (stated or implied) to start, I lose, because I only lost my maternal grandmother aged 63 (oh- and both my wife's grandmothers). My mum barely survived cancer when I was 4- she's luckily been in remission 25 years. I mentioned my future sister-in-law's aunt because she's the only one of my fairly small extended family to be suffering at the moment. I'd be surprised if there was any Hexite who hadn't lost a loved one to cancer- or, more likely several, since statistically cancer will affect 1 in 3 of the population at some point in their lives.

I was talking about burkas, not headscarves.

And I was asking you to legally define the difference in a way that would be fair, and enforceable in law. As it happens, the mother of my best mate (who has been like a brother to me for 18 years) died of skin cancer, and I would not have liked to have legislated about what she was and was not allowed to wear on her face when the cancer spread there.

And if you're reading anger in this post over that "Nice", then you're flaming well right. Never has any post on any forum got me as angry as that. I am incandescent at that remark. If that's the level of comment I can expect on HEXUS, then congratulations, because you've got me sitting here, right on the knife edge of leaving, and leaving permanently.

In fact, sod it, I'm not standing for that. Bye.

It was not my intention to deliberately upset you (I didn't know your family cancer history)....but it was my intention to make clear my strong distaste at your views, on the basis that I feel that they would lead to discrimination against people who were suffering already through no fault of their own. I cannot see how the fact that your family is suffering from cancer prevents me from pointing out that you are apparently supporting a law that would curtail their freedom of choice.