Burka Ban Ruled Out As 'Rather Un-British'

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
We should aggressively ban all clothing we disagree with.

For example, I disagree with women wearing clothing that conceals their genitals, therefore it should be banned.

Clothing bans work.

Why they work or what they accomplish isn't quite clear to me, but I do know they work because bans work in general.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
We should aggressively ban all clothing we disagree with.

For example, I disagree with women wearing clothing that conceals their genitals, therefore it should be banned.

Clothing bans work.

Why they work or what they accomplish isn't quite clear to me, but I do know they work because bans work in general.




Not necessarily.

With heavy-handed regulation I'm sure that the state could produce the circumstances where we are all equally dissatisfied.

For example: while we cannot ban clothes outright, would you be agreeable to the enforcement of regulations dictation strategically placed holes in women's clothing and undergarments?

It will create jobs and with the economy the way it is these days that is a big plus.

*I shall call my Chinese cousin in Washington. He is a lobbyist for the textiles industry.


Edit;

I would also like to add that many workplace injuries are related to clothing - clothing originating from the lightly regulated clothing industry and the weak legislation that tolerates it - all in the name of turning a profit. Scumbags.

People who work naked don't get pulled into their CNC lathe and die. Clothing Bans in the Workplace work.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I'm pretty sure s/he was being sarcastic.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What a fantastic idea, why not pass it and use it as case law to ban other cloths we don’t like. I am thinking anything in a size 6 or 8 found in the female section of the store, we could use it to ban everything apart from underwear



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
In the States, in New York City for example, it is not illegal for a woman to go topless in public.

If it's socially acceptable to be nearly naked in public, why arrest people for having too many clothes on? As I see it, the burka is just at the opposite end of the clothing spectrum.

While certainly there are times when one's face must be visible, and in those rare instances women should comply, those do not occur that often.

I do agree that women should not be compelled to wear burkas and personally believe them to be evidence of a woman's oppression. I also believe banning them is a form of religious intolerance.

Nobody here has tried to prohibit Mormon or Amish women from wearing long skirts if they so choose, and I doubt if anyone would. There would be a great cry about freedom of religion. But then Mormon and Amish women are mostly white and believe in Jesus Christ, so they are not so frighteningly "foreign" to the majority.

There is no doubt that the burka's association with the Muslim faith is what makes it seem so objectionable to some.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
I do agree that women should not be compelled to wear burkas and personally believe them to be evidence of a woman's oppression. I also believe banning them is a form of religious intolerance.


Gap in logic right here. Fighting OPPRESSION doesn't equal "intolerance".

As I said, I would only accept burkas if they accepted full public nudity.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Sestias
I do agree that women should not be compelled to wear burkas and personally believe them to be evidence of a woman's oppression. I also believe banning them is a form of religious intolerance.


Gap in logic right here. Fighting OPPRESSION doesn't equal "intolerance".

As I said, I would only accept burkas if they accepted full public nudity.

Fighting oppression by stopping people (women, specifically) from wearing what they want to wear?

Nudity should by allowed, too, but it's a separate issue from whether or not we should ban burquas.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 


Hey British!

Goodbye burka - trust Brits to be polite!

Get rid of the burkas and get rid of the terrorists - go back to your own country!



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by thecrow001
 


Hey British!

Goodbye burka - trust Brits to be polite!

Get rid of the burkas and get rid of the terrorists - go back to your own country!

Brits? Polite? I must be in the wrong part of Britain.

The rest of your post was just idiotic.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

My logic seems clear to me.

I PERSONALLY consider the burka to be a sign of oppression.

However, I think BANNING them (making them illegal, etc.) is a form of religious intolerance.

I personally consider the wearing of "prairie dresses" by Mormon fundamentalists oppressive and I wouldn't do it. However, I would fight against a LAW that said these women are not free to practice their religion if they so choose.

There are many things I consider oppressive that I would not make laws against.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

My logic seems clear to me.

I PERSONALLY consider the burka to be a sign of oppression.

However, I think BANNING them (making them illegal, etc.) is a form of religious intolerance.

Not just that; it's a form of oppression against those who do wish to wear it.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
After looking at the arguments and giving some thoughts, this is what I believe is fair.
The burka is a part of a religious culture, one from the middle eastern. While being proud of your heritage and where you are from, along with being devout, I can see it being something to consider. But with todays society, being what it is, out in public, especially when shopping and banking, along with working with customers it is not a feasible aspect to cover the entire face up. Many stores would not accept such, and rightly so, as it defeats the point of safety and robbery deterence if the face is not seen. There is no way to tell the idenity of the person under the veil and as much as they could state that it is a point of religion, there has to also be consideration for the country at large. If it was a middle eastern country, that people were moving to and the local customs and laws dictated such, then there would not be a problem But this is not the case, the issue being that devout muslims are immigrating to western countries, and the style of dress and codes of conduct are slightly different. Many people when talking with another, often want to see the face of the person they are talking to and dealing with. Many people would not have a problem with the heavy garments or a head scarf, but as long as the face is covered, then it leads to questions as to what is the person hiding, is what they saying acutally the truth or not. Communication is 90% visual, body language, combined with movement and facial expression are the key factors in such. So in private, and at places of worship it should be, the same with any religous area. But when in private or in a business, I believe that the veil needs to either be lightened up where the face can be made out or removed fully. Immigrating to a new country is always a difficult decision, but at the same time, it is on the immigrants to adjust and to join the society there, not to just get there and demand rights or special privledges. To do such, puts a burden on society and causes rifts and tensions.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Not only immigrants wear burquas.

The standard for what constitutes 'acceptable attire' in society changes regularly.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 

I believe that the issue will boil down to several questions:
1) What ultimately is Britsh in nature, and dress?
2) What has a greater priority, religious freedom or the public safety.
3) What are reasonable expectations for when a person immigrates to a new country, where the cultures and society norms may clash.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 

I believe that the issue will boil down to several questions:
1) What ultimately is Britsh in nature, and dress?
2) What has a greater priority, religious freedom or the public safety.
3) What are reasonable expectations for when a person immigrates to a new country, where the cultures and society norms may clash.

1. 'British in dress' should be the ability to wear anything you want- including nothing at all.
2. Should be decided on a case by case basis. In the case of banning the burqua in all public places, freedom of religion should certainly come first. I can see (and would support) certain restrictions being enforced at airports, etc, for obvious reasons. Going about your daily business in a public place wearing a burqua should certainly not be restricted.
3. If a person immigrates to a country that boasts about 'freedom of expression', 'freedom of religion', etc. (like Britain does, often) the expectations (at least in a legal sense) should be as lax as possible.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Ban what we want it's our playground. If we don't play by their rules we get killed. They don't get killed here so they should stop bitching



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crackinthewall
Ban what we want it's our playground. If we don't play by their rules we get killed. They don't get killed here so they should stop bitching

Nobody is denying that we can't 'ban what we want'. The real questions are 'should we ban it?' and 'what are the pros and cons of banning such an item of clothing?'.

Which is what the debate is about.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Banning burkas is simply not the way Britain does things. Their colonial expereince has taught them how to rule without banning items of clothing. To those who believe that terrorists could hide behind them well give examples none of the british terrorists have ever worn burkas.

THe real agenda that some have is a hatred of Islam as opposed to the minority who are terrorists. Why didn't anyone suggest the brits ban nuns during the Troubles??? or even get hysterical over catholic churches??

PS for those that do not know it the IRA were Catholic.





top topics
 
2
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join