Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time to ban the Burqa?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by DavidWillts
 

we are talking about not being able to see the face , nothing to do with baggy clothing .



That makes no gdm sense...you act as if they could see her face they wouldn't still be pointing those guns at her concerned with what she might have under her attire...the issue isnt about not being able to see the face...identifying her doesn't identify whether or not she has a bomb...

The accusation that "we need to see her face to identify for security purposes bla bla bla" is pretty flimsy considering its not the hidden face they are concrened about...the hidden face is a power tripping thing, they want to be able to do whatever they want with you whenever they want for whatever reasons they want...and they want to you comply or face death...and they justify this with an extremely unhealthy fear that every gdm person not wearing a bikini is hiding a thermonuclear bomb....

how the hell people don't see this as insane is beyone me...


The EYE see's everything but itself...




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
That makes no gdm sense...you act as if they could see her face they wouldn't still be pointing those guns at her concerned with what she might have under her attire...the issue isnt about not being able to see the face...identifying her doesn't identify whether or not she has a bomb...


Perhaps you are correct.

On the other hand, the UK security forces have discovered and prevented a large number of Islamic terrorist bombings in the UK, so their caution is perhaps understandable.

The following list is from the front page of MI5's website.



www.mi5.gov.uk...

The list of notable terrorist offences listed on the web site

* 27 February 2002

Moinul Abedin was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment after being convicted of making large amounts of detonators and the explosive HMTD in a Birmingham house.

* 1 April 2003
Leicester residents Brahim Benmerzouga and Baghdad Merziane were each sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for their roles in fundraising for Al Qaida and other extremist groups.

* 1 March 2005
Saajit Badat was imprisoned for 13 years following his admission that he had plotted with jailed shoe-bomber Richard Reid to destroy an airliner over the Atlantic.

* 13 April 2005
Kamel Bourgass was convicted of plotting to commit a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury. He was already serving a life sentence for the murder of PC Stephen Oake.

* 7 February 2006
Radical London cleric Abu Hamza was convicted of incitement to murder and sentenced to 7 years.

* 7 November 2006
Al Qaida operative Dhiren Barot was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years' imprisonment after admitting a plot to attack UK and US targets using a "dirty bomb" and gas-filled limousines.

* 30 April 2007
Five men were imprisoned for life after being convicted of a plot to attack targets such as shopping centres and nightclubs using fertiliser-based explosives; two others were acquitted.

* 15 June 2007
Seven men were jailed for a total of 136 years for their involvement in Dhiren Barot's "dirty bomb" plot and "Gas Limos Project".

* 5 July 2007
Three men were imprisoned for up to 10 years after being convicted of using the Internet to promote terrorism.

* 11 July 2007
The four would-be suicide bombers of 21 July 2005 were given life sentences following their convictions on charges of conspiracy to murder. A fifth man involved in the plot was convicted in November 2007.

* 26 July 2007
Five students were convicted on charges of possessing material for terrorist purposes with the intention of going to terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

* 9 Jan 2008
Sohail Anjum Qureshi, an Al Qaida-trained terrorist intent on carrying out an act of terrorism overseas, was jailed for four and a half years.

* 18 February 2008
Five conspirators were convicted of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier and were sentenced to terms of between two years and life.

* 17 December 2008
Bilal Abdulla, an Iraqi citizen who worked in a hospital in Paisley, Scotland, was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment for his role in terrorist attacks carried out in London and Glasgow International Airport in June 2007.

* 14 September 2009
In one of a series of trials, three men who plotted in 2006 to blow up aircraft mid-flight between the UK, America and Canada by using liquid explosives were jailed for life.

* 8 July 2010
Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Khan and Waheed Zaman were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to murder persons unknown. By this point a total of twelve people had been convicted in seven trials for terrorism-related offences in connection with the 2006 aircraft bomb plot.

* 2 November 2010
Roshonara Choudhry, a student from East London, was convicted of attempting to murder the MP Stephen Timms after being inspired by extremist sermons she had watched on the Internet.


Of course, the majority of British Muslims are not interesed in terrorism.

On the other hand, the burqa wearers are perhaps the more extreme Muslims.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
When you sacrifice freedom for security, you deserve neither.

-(Ben Franklin?)

Just a reminder, folks.


I wish it was that simple.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I did make a mistake you are still wrong on this


It is up to the individual Muslim woman as to whether or not she chooses to wear the
hijab 61



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Many Western people find Muslim women wearing a burqa in Europe offensive.


Last time I checked there was freedom of religion in Europe right? So if a Muslim women CHOOSES to cover herself, who are you or the state to say what she is wearing is sooo offensive it should not be worn?

You are completely entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to deprive someone of their religious expression.


Many Saudi men find Western women wearing mini skirts in Saudi offensive. So much so that the religious police will enforce their notion of decency.


But you do not live in a fascist theocratic dictatorship, you live in a society that is supposed to respect and tolerate all religious and social eccentricities as long as they do not physically harm or kill anyone.


Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Robbers steal things with their hands, should we cut off hands at birth?


Muslim Sharia law prescribes that thieves should get their hand cut off.

Is that what you mean about growing a pair?

If not, are you merely selectively choosing the bits of Islamic culture you like?

If you are allowed to do that, why not me?


Well I think this post is a little silly. Your complaining about how barbaric their governments are and then say "If they can do it so can we!"

That's absurd...

The "western world" is supposed to be an example of freedom and social enlightenment, we don't have laws that punish people with an eye for an eye because we know that is not justice or moral. Just because some third world dictatorship exploits, oppresses and tortures their own people does not mean we have any right to.

The type of legislation you are promoting simply stokes the fire within fundamentalist elements of Islam. It paints the image of western culture as anti-Islam, which again encourages hatred from the middle east.

You have every right to be upset at an individual if they have done something wrong, if they hide behind their faith to defend an illegal and immoral act then they are a lost and sick sociopath who doesn't interpret their doctrine in the best of ways.

But as for the women in the article you posted, I find no evidence anywhere to support she had an explosive device or threatened to detonate one.

This article entitled Veiled woman threatens to detonate bomb. (which is completely misleading) says nothing of the women threatening to detonate a device, just a bunch of "eye-witnesses" that say she went into a hardware store, therefore she must be a terrorist for because Muslims only go to buy nails for pipe bombs...right?
edit on 14-3-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I did make a mistake you are still wrong on this


It is up to the individual Muslim woman as to whether or not she chooses to wear the hijab 61%



Yet in the same survey, 31% of UK Muslim students felt a women should be forced to wear a hijab.

YouGov Survey

edit on 14-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Burqa has recently been banned in France. If the ban can survive challenges in the EU court of Human Rights, I believe that the rest of the EU will follow suit.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
Well I think this post is a little silly. Your complaining about how barbaric their governments are and then say "If they can do it so can we!"


Not at all. I said nothing about governments, barbaric or otherwise.

If Europeans are expected to respect Muslim values while in Muslim countries, why are Muslims not expected to respect Western values while in Europe?


Originally posted by Openeye
The "western world" is supposed to be an example of freedom and social enlightenment, we don't have laws that punish people with an eye for an eye because we know that is not justice or moral. Just because some third world dictatorship exploits, oppresses and tortures their own people does not mean we have any right to.


The Western world is supposed to be an example of freedom and social enlightenment.

Forcing women to wear a burqa is freedom and social enlightenment?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


You are confusing "values" with law.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by ollncasino
 


You are confusing "values" with law.


The majority of Europeans support a ban on the burqa (see my previous posts for percentages and links) and a number of European countries have banned the burqa or are in the process of doing so (again see my previous posts and links).

Where is the confusion?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


Wearing a mask in this day and age seems stupid and dangerous.

Only people with something to hide need to wear masks.

They can wear whatever they want in terms of robes but no masks.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by 23432

Banning a piece of cloth for security reasons ?

No .


Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to wear crash helmets or balaclavas in banks?

Police hunt Sydney burka bandit


A man has been robbed at gunpoint by a bandit dressed in a burka in Sydney's south yesterday.

www.abc.net.au...




I am suggesting that the ban is going to backfire in long run and everyone will end up being the victim of those who rule over us .
Man dressing in Burqa so that they can escape/commit a crime is nothing new .
What you don't seem to understand is that the fear which is instilled in YOU about Burqa is just a beginning of an era of oppression .
There are millions of muslims in the west and most of them don't wear any type of Burqa .
This issue of muslim women wearing Burqa is actually a personal choice for those women .

By and large , banning this garment is actually detrimental to human freedom .

It makes no difference how much I dislike the Burqa . If I attempt to dictate someone else what to wear then I actually become the oppressor .



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
She is certainly more capable of concealing her identity when she does it.


Yeah, but it's obvious that items of clothing which cover the face, such as the burqa or niqab, should not be allowed in situations where people are expected to reveal their identity.

The burqa situation is a non-issue: people should be allowed to wear one if they want to, but shouldn't be given any special dispensation to keep their face covered when required to ''unmask''.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Yes, ban the damned things! Ever smell one of those women in the swealtering heat of summer? It's disgusting and certainly unhealthy.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Wearing a mask in this day and age seems stupid and dangerous.

Only people with something to hide need to wear masks.

They can wear whatever they want in terms of robes but no masks.


There does seem to be a European vs. US divide on this.

Europeans are more in favour of a ban on the burqa while Americans see it as a personal rights issue.

Usually, Europe is following the USA. In this case however, Europe has both a far larger number of Muslims as well as, arguably, a more 'working class' group of Muslim immigrants.

As soon as Americans actually see burqa clad women on their streets who are there in numbers and there to stay but not integrate, support for banning the burqa will likely follow, just has it has in Europe.


Support in European countries for banning the Burqa.

Britain in 2006 - 29%
Britain in 2010 - 62%

Spain in 2006 - 43%
Spain in 2010 - 59%

France in 2006 - 78%
France in 2010 - 82%

Germany in 2006 - 54%
Germany in 2010 - 71%

USA in 2010 - 28%

pewresearch.org... pewglobal.org...




edit on 14-3-2012 by ollncasino because: formatting



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432.
It makes no difference how much I dislike the Burqa . If I attempt to dictate someone else what to wear then I actually become the oppressor .


Yet you appear happy to allow Muslim men to dictate that women must wear the burqa.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 


A lot of our conveinace stores now don't allow the big sweat shirts with hoods, at the very least you have to take your hood down before entering the store.

Same premise.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

The burqa situation is a non-issue: people should be allowed to wear one if they want to, but shouldn't be given any special dispensation to keep their face covered when required to ''unmask''.


The burqa is a non issue to you but the majority of European people disagree with you.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



If Europeans are expected to respect Muslim values while in Muslim countries, why are Muslims not expected to respect Western values while in Europe?


Simple...again the majority of these countries are fascist theocratic dictatorships where the values of the people mimic their faith and are followed so strictly due to punishment by state authority. I guarantee you there are many many many people in these countries that don't give two $&!%s about westerners wear while they are visiting their country there or about what they themselves personally wear. They either act like they care because of the pressure from there community and neighbors or afraid of persecution from the state.

In Europe and America people are supposed to be able to freely practice ALL their personal beliefs and be able to express themselves in ANY way as long as it does not physically harm or kill anyone.


Forcing women to wear a burqa is freedom and social enlightenment?


To my knowledge the UK or the US has not forced anyone to wear anything, oh wait no thats wrong walking around naked is not exactly legal in most countries
.

But as I stated above, practitioners of Islam have every RIGHT to wear what they want just as you do. Just because you or even the majority of people disagree with what they are wearing does not make you RIGHT. It means you and others think certain forms of non-aggressive religious expression are wrong and should be banned. And I for one think that is wrong, people can choose for themselves if they want to be oppressed by religious dogma or not. It is not you or the states obligation to free them from their religious bonds.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
In Europe and America people are supposed to be able to freely practice ALL their personal beliefs and be able to express themselves in ANY way as long as it does not physically harm or kill anyone.


Incorrect. People can excercise their rights freely until they start to infringe upon the rights of others.

Then some sort of balancing of rights must occur.


Originally posted by Openeye
Just because you or even the majority of people disagree with what they are wearing does not make you RIGHT.


When in Rome...
edit on 14-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join