Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Does Anyone Oppose This Bill?
164 Answers
http://
/// The bill states that "a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence." It adds that "where members of the public are licensed to access private premises for the purposes of the giving or receiving of goods or services, it shall not be an offence for the owner...to request that a person wearing a garment or other object intended to obscure the face remove such garment or object; or to require that a person refusing a request...leave the premises." ///
I look forward to the debate both on here and also in Parliament.
/// The bill states that "a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence." It adds that "where members of the public are licensed to access private premises for the purposes of the giving or receiving of goods or services, it shall not be an offence for the owner...to request that a person wearing a garment or other object intended to obscure the face remove such garment or object; or to require that a person refusing a request...leave the premises." ///
I look forward to the debate both on here and also in Parliament.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy hughes "....It may well be that the majority of burka wearers are perfectly happy to dress that way, it is a part of their culture, and they grow up accepting it as the way things are - and who are we to deny them..."
I wish the burqa clad recognised this and didnt demand employment where a visual persona was important
I wish the burqa clad recognised this and didnt demand employment where a visual persona was important
Just reads through these posts.
Micro skirts and no underwear.
Did you look to ascertain this?
What about under a burka?
One size does not fit all, whether it is a piece of clothing or proscriptive law.
I would prefer that burkas were not worn but how possible is it to be sure whose decision it is that one should be worn?
Micro skirts and no underwear.
Did you look to ascertain this?
What about under a burka?
One size does not fit all, whether it is a piece of clothing or proscriptive law.
I would prefer that burkas were not worn but how possible is it to be sure whose decision it is that one should be worn?
daisy, you can't, no one can.
Naomi i agree, your comments like mine have totally fallen by the wayside, perceived as you probably know as racist in content. I am pretty much in the camp of when in Rome, but that isn't some people's take on it. if you look at many shop assistants in the capital they wear the burkha, not veiled because after all how can you interact, talk whilst wearing it.
It is divisive and no one can possibly know the percentage of women around the world who don it, yet don't wish to, they do so because if they didn't their lives would be ruined or ended.
Naomi i agree, your comments like mine have totally fallen by the wayside, perceived as you probably know as racist in content. I am pretty much in the camp of when in Rome, but that isn't some people's take on it. if you look at many shop assistants in the capital they wear the burkha, not veiled because after all how can you interact, talk whilst wearing it.
It is divisive and no one can possibly know the percentage of women around the world who don it, yet don't wish to, they do so because if they didn't their lives would be ruined or ended.
The other side of the coin. For those who don’t want to watch the whole hour, watch what happens between the reporter and the burqa wearer on the protest march from 8.50 minutes.
Ironic that ‘liberal’ westerners defend the ‘freedom’ of Muslim women to wear what they like, but that courtesy isn’t reciprocated by those who have a choice.
Ironic that ‘liberal’ westerners defend the ‘freedom’ of Muslim women to wear what they like, but that courtesy isn’t reciprocated by those who have a choice.
This report in today's Birmingham local newspaper is pertinent.
http://
http://
I would oppose this purely upon the grounds of it being so poorly worded.
If it were less mealy-mouthed and was sufficiently up-front to use wording which matched its apparent intent - the banning of two out of three varieties of Muslim traditional headgear and nothing to do with the wearing of Guido Fawkes/Badger/Fox etc. masks on protest marches, fancy dress (masque-ball) masks, wedding/funeral veils or anything else - then it would overtly contradict pre-existing legislation against racially discriminatory behaviour.
The matter of whether or not it would be policeable/enforcable are somewhat moot, at this stage but also count against it.
Why not, initially, pass a law stipulating that a woman can not be compelled by another person to wear the aformentioned clothing items and allow time (a few years) for a proportion of them to voluntarily change their behaviour? At the end of this period, you should be able to get an idea of how many individuals who the burqha ban would criminalise, due to retaining the traditional ways, just by touring the relevant shopping district on the right day.
An obvious answer to that would be that this is also impractical because it places them in the same dilemma as the victims of physical abuse - that of having to press a charge against their own spouse which ultimately necessitates extricating themself from the family home, risking long term separation from the relatives they still want to maintain contact with and so on.
We would be forcing _major life changes_ on a minority popuation purely because some politician (and others like him) dislikes the inconvenience of conducting social interactions with people who deny them the ability to so much as recognise them from a distance. That wouldn't be right, imho.
If it were less mealy-mouthed and was sufficiently up-front to use wording which matched its apparent intent - the banning of two out of three varieties of Muslim traditional headgear and nothing to do with the wearing of Guido Fawkes/Badger/Fox etc. masks on protest marches, fancy dress (masque-ball) masks, wedding/funeral veils or anything else - then it would overtly contradict pre-existing legislation against racially discriminatory behaviour.
The matter of whether or not it would be policeable/enforcable are somewhat moot, at this stage but also count against it.
Why not, initially, pass a law stipulating that a woman can not be compelled by another person to wear the aformentioned clothing items and allow time (a few years) for a proportion of them to voluntarily change their behaviour? At the end of this period, you should be able to get an idea of how many individuals who the burqha ban would criminalise, due to retaining the traditional ways, just by touring the relevant shopping district on the right day.
An obvious answer to that would be that this is also impractical because it places them in the same dilemma as the victims of physical abuse - that of having to press a charge against their own spouse which ultimately necessitates extricating themself from the family home, risking long term separation from the relatives they still want to maintain contact with and so on.
We would be forcing _major life changes_ on a minority popuation purely because some politician (and others like him) dislikes the inconvenience of conducting social interactions with people who deny them the ability to so much as recognise them from a distance. That wouldn't be right, imho.
People persisently argue about 'When in Rome ...'
I have been to Rome, and felt no compunction to sit in pavement cafes all day chatting with friends and enjoying the sunshine, and speaking fluent Italian!
So if people want to use the 'When in Rome ...' card, you'e better get that nightschool course in Italian booked now!
I have been to Rome, and felt no compunction to sit in pavement cafes all day chatting with friends and enjoying the sunshine, and speaking fluent Italian!
So if people want to use the 'When in Rome ...' card, you'e better get that nightschool course in Italian booked now!
/with regard to masked police, Zeuhl, aren't you ignoring your own arguments about parties being on an equal footing? No, I wouldn't like hooded police, since they have powers over me I do not have over them. (They can for instance kill me with impunity.) /
Jno
Not really. A further disadvantage in interaction is introduced by one party choosing to hide their face.
If there is inequality between you and police it comes from their powers which they already have.
With that as a given, would those police powers applied against you be made better or worse if the officers were all hooded or masked?
Jno
Not really. A further disadvantage in interaction is introduced by one party choosing to hide their face.
If there is inequality between you and police it comes from their powers which they already have.
With that as a given, would those police powers applied against you be made better or worse if the officers were all hooded or masked?
Identifier numbers is irrelevant to this discussion
The issue is whether people concealing their faces affects how we interact with them, affects the dynamic between them and us
If certain Arab influenced customs involving the concealment of the face are of no importance, then we should be ok with our police doing the same
After all, potentially people will be in situations where people with power over them will conceal their faces
Eg if someone is being told by a public official that their benefits are being stopped, or their application for a house has been unsuccessful; they should be able to look in the face of the person telling them
Btw this isn't an entirely Muslim issue
One if my favourite places is Malaysia where a large proportion of the population is Muslim. There, the women are perfectly happy to have their faces and hair uncovered
The issue is whether people concealing their faces affects how we interact with them, affects the dynamic between them and us
If certain Arab influenced customs involving the concealment of the face are of no importance, then we should be ok with our police doing the same
After all, potentially people will be in situations where people with power over them will conceal their faces
Eg if someone is being told by a public official that their benefits are being stopped, or their application for a house has been unsuccessful; they should be able to look in the face of the person telling them
Btw this isn't an entirely Muslim issue
One if my favourite places is Malaysia where a large proportion of the population is Muslim. There, the women are perfectly happy to have their faces and hair uncovered
I don't know what women wearing burkhas are called - burkhees? but enveloping themselves, if by choice, from head to toe and peering through a tiny slit, is at best silly, and at worst aggressive and dangerous. I you asked them if they would like to see everyone so decked out they would say yes, but that's a lie; could you imagine such a world for them included? - what would television be like? Coronation street in burkhas! and in restaurants, and the House of parliament, the mind boggles!
No their attitude is anti-social; 'I can see you, but you can't see me!' and has nothing whatsoever to do with their professed religion.
No their attitude is anti-social; 'I can see you, but you can't see me!' and has nothing whatsoever to do with their professed religion.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Farleigh Hospice Food And Drink
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.