- 17,865
- 509
Burqa
- Thread starter Strittan
- 462 comments
- 30,965 views
- 17,865
- 509
Oh, I was working mostly in the context of this thread, but the majority of the threads he generates are "hey, look at this semi-sensational article that I will now roll out to a more extreme degree." The new GPS thread comes to mind with words like "devastation" though GPS interference.
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
Ok i can see, how you may have read it differently.
I did not mean to suggest the law does not exist because of the burka issue. Far from it, the law happened expressly because of the Burka issue.
What I meant to say is that the law is governing everybody in France, which is a huge development, it's about every person and anybody wanting to cover their head/face. This is why I differentiate it from just being about Burkas.
I did not mean to suggest the law does not exist because of the burka issue. Far from it, the law happened expressly because of the Burka issue.
What I meant to say is that the law is governing everybody in France, which is a huge development, it's about every person and anybody wanting to cover their head/face. This is why I differentiate it from just being about Burkas.
- 17,865
- 509
You can't say that and then follow it up with this.
Either you acknowledge the law was created over the Burka issue or you do not. You can't say they made it over the Burka and then try to separate the issue. The law is pretty obviously aimed at a single group, and it seems you are trying to make that to not be the case.
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
Yes, it's aimed at a minority group. But it effects everybody. The everybody is more important than the minority i feel in this instance.
Saying that doesnt mean I think only the minority should be banned from wearing the covering. I have already said people should wear what they like.
Saying that doesnt mean I think only the minority should be banned from wearing the covering. I have already said people should wear what they like.
- 17,865
- 509
Clarify this then for me - do you feel restricting rights that only impact a limited group for the protection of the majority is correct? Should displaying of the Confederate flag be banned because it can offend people and some may consider it a symbol of slavery? Should smoking in private businesses, where traditionally the operator decides if smoking is okay, be banned because it bothers the majority?
This has been the primary focus of what I've been discussing with you, and you've somehow not given a straight answer in all these posts.
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
To the first point, I don't consider it "right", but I "may" consider it essential for national security. But in the case of the Burka, I don't have a problem with people wearing it, and would allow it by law.
I would have to consider each view on a case by case basis.
I don't know what the confederate flag is, so will pass on that.
Smoking is a health issue for medical science to give a view on then government take action on. Personally I am very much against smoking, so I think it should be banned worldwide, and in space.
I would have to consider each view on a case by case basis.
I don't know what the confederate flag is, so will pass on that.
Smoking is a health issue for medical science to give a view on then government take action on. Personally I am very much against smoking, so I think it should be banned worldwide, and in space.
- 17,865
- 509
Restrict personal choice for the better of their health. You cannot decide what a person wants, and smoking should be a personal choice. If you want to continue with that logic, you should ban alcohol and unhealthy foods.
The Confederate Flag, as you can possibly guess based on the context I've presented it it, was the flag used by the Confederate States (The South) during the US Civil War.
- 17,865
- 509
So then why would a group get decide which is worse than any other? Arbitrary laws that limit personal choice simply violate rights of an individual. And your personal opinions dictate how you feel those should be selected, which automatically makes you completely unable to objectively view how things should work. I personally do not like dealing with smokers at a bar, but I certainly don't let that change my view that it is a violation of private property, personal freedoms, and so forth to ban it in privately own businesses.
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
That's a good point.
With this ban in place the authorities are going to have to put a lot of effort into detecting things like that. From what I gather though, they already have the intelligence of which women used to wear the burqa in France, so they will possibly use surveillance to check they are not being house bound.
It's a nightmare this law.
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
I thought you just wanted a direct personal answer, I did not give my philosophical reasoning, which would be different.
To put things very simply I believe in the rights of the individual, I don't care about minorities or majorities.
What's you view of the law saying passengers must be given a full imaging body scan which shows up all the private areas of a persons body?
- 17,865
- 509
I think the whole system is a waste of time, an invasion of privacy, and the result of knee jerk legislation. It is also possible to consider its a bit of a monopoly granted by the government to the manufacturer of approved scanners, but that is a bit too paranoid for me.
But really its just not needed. And its already shown to have failures due to the relative idiocy of those that run the scans. I believe there has been a good discussion comparing the US system to the Israeli system for terms of speed and actual effectiveness.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
The Human Rights thread we had discussions about Objective Rights, subjective being a cultural thing and not worth discussing.
This thread is subjective: on religion and how far social obligations (to show or not to show your face) can go.
So to find out how these social/subjective points would work, this thread still has a lot of value to me.
I come back to my nude Digambara monks, I believe these people are correct to run around nude. However I live with clothes on (its too cold here anyway for the moment).
Why do I not move to the Digambara monks and join them? Why do I stay in a community that does not allow me to run around nude?
I make a choice that I can provide for my life best here, I can run around nude in private places, my apartment, the sauna, Nudist clubs, etc ... (btw my need is not such that I actually do this).
So an Arab woman that wants to wear the Burqa is she different?
She can live in Saudi Arabia and wear the Burqa.
She can wear a Burqa in her apartment, the mosque, etc ...
France has decided that:
Where I do not value this law very highly, it is a social law, that does not allow to cover your face in the street, public gardens, shops and city halls. If you do not like it to a point "you can not live with it":
1) You appeal before a higher instance to invalidate the law. (I would recommend this)
2) You avoid the street, public gardens, shops and city halls. Possible?
3) You take the fine when you get caught. (public disobedience)
4) You move out of that society and go to one that you find better
It seems to remain a discussion between what the society values:
1) Not cover your face: to increase security / they actually say that it is to protect women from repression
2) Cover your face: the state should not intervene in acceptable clothing in public places (also not public nudity in that case)
The issue is that you are born in a certain value system and when you do not like it, you have no clue how the other value systems really work, so there are several barriers to move (friends, family, habits, uncertainty). But as long as you can freely choose your value system, I do not see any of your rights violated. You accept or take measures to deal with it, the choice is up to you. It becomes unacceptable if you do not get a choice.
This thread is subjective: on religion and how far social obligations (to show or not to show your face) can go.
So to find out how these social/subjective points would work, this thread still has a lot of value to me.
I come back to my nude Digambara monks, I believe these people are correct to run around nude. However I live with clothes on (its too cold here anyway for the moment).
Why do I not move to the Digambara monks and join them? Why do I stay in a community that does not allow me to run around nude?
I make a choice that I can provide for my life best here, I can run around nude in private places, my apartment, the sauna, Nudist clubs, etc ... (btw my need is not such that I actually do this).
So an Arab woman that wants to wear the Burqa is she different?
She can live in Saudi Arabia and wear the Burqa.
She can wear a Burqa in her apartment, the mosque, etc ...
France has decided that:
Where I do not value this law very highly, it is a social law, that does not allow to cover your face in the street, public gardens, shops and city halls. If you do not like it to a point "you can not live with it":
1) You appeal before a higher instance to invalidate the law. (I would recommend this)
2) You avoid the street, public gardens, shops and city halls. Possible?
3) You take the fine when you get caught. (public disobedience)
4) You move out of that society and go to one that you find better
It seems to remain a discussion between what the society values:
1) Not cover your face: to increase security / they actually say that it is to protect women from repression
2) Cover your face: the state should not intervene in acceptable clothing in public places (also not public nudity in that case)
The issue is that you are born in a certain value system and when you do not like it, you have no clue how the other value systems really work, so there are several barriers to move (friends, family, habits, uncertainty). But as long as you can freely choose your value system, I do not see any of your rights violated. You accept or take measures to deal with it, the choice is up to you. It becomes unacceptable if you do not get a choice.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
I voted yes because I don't think governments should involve themselves with what people are wearing. That said, of course there are situations in which the burqa could be problematic.
ID for example.
ID for example.
- 29,975
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It's from almost 2 years ago, but this quote sums it up for me.
In terms of whether they should be banned or not, it is irrelevant whether we like the appearance of the burqa or not, it is not acceptable to deny the right to wear an item of clothing of your own choosing.
I, along with Danoff, do not like the burqa. Any time I have walked passed someone wearing one I have found it intimidating and unnerving as well as the reasons in the quote; they're highly offensive to me and I would recommend against wearing one.
But, that does not give us the right to say that one is not allowed to wear one, if one chooses to do so. It's their body, their items of clothing and their perogative.
Again, siding with the quote, private property laws are to the discretion of the proprietor of said property, but in a public place, whoever wants to wear a burqa... knock yourself out. Go for it. Fine by me. I won't be wearing one, but it's your choice.
---
Should we ban Christians from wearing crosses?
There was an outrageous case in the UK where a woman working on the helpdesk at a London Airport, possibly Heathrow, was told to remove a small christianity cross necklace and forbidden to wear it for fear of upsetting others. The uproar was monumental. And rightly so, as a staunch non-theist I do not endorse religious iconography but I certainly will not condone it. Freedom of expression is an important aspect in a healthy society.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
It's amazing how many people I've come across who think the airline was right to deny her right to wear a cross. And I can't believe it every time I hear it.
People can - essentially - wear whatever they damn well please. A tiny cross on a chain will hardly impede on the woman's work and I can't see it being offensive to anyone either. You'd have to be incredibly creative to use one to take over a plane too, so there's no grounds for denying her right to wear it on a safety basis either.
The burka to me is no different. Want to wear one? Go nuts. I don't particularly like it myself - neither the odd practice nor what it stands for - but I'm far from believing it should be banned. If that's part of someone's culture, then it's part of someone's culture.
I'd be much more in support of people from other cultures learning our damn language if they want to come to this country, rather than being forced to abide by our clothing norms. It's much more useful in wider society for people from other countries to speak the native language if they choose to live and work abroad. I wouldn't move to France, or China, or anywhere else* and not bother to learn the local language, and I don't see any reason why someone moving to my own country should be an exception.
*Hell, I'm even having to "learn" American English in order to write for an American website...
- 29,975
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Really?! Straying off topic slightly, but that is quite unbelievable. Most people I know are not religious, but I do not know anybody who agreed with the airline's decision. It gives groups like the 'English' Defence League all the more ammunition on which to base their reviled bigotry. 'English' with a sarcastic tone because they love canvasing in the welsh border areas...
And as for learning US English; you poor fellow
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
A private property owner should have the right to deny services to any customer he wants for any reason he wants. If not allowed to do that, then the property rights of the owner have been violated.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Their support for the airline was more on the basis of "she's not required to wear it by her religion, so why should she?" rather than "HAH, you've been denied the right to something!".
So I can sort of see their viewpoint, I just think the right to wear what you like overrides it. Whether she's required to wear it (like a burka) or not is irrelevant to me, as there's no reason why she shouldn't have been allowed to wear it.
I agree with this, incidentally (with respect to private property - in public, people should be allowed to wear what they want, as long as it's not an outright representation of hatred, such as a Nazi cross or a KKK mask) - but the plane situation was different. If a small cross on a chain outright violated the company's dress code for whatever reason then it wouldn't be an issue, especially since a steward wearing a turban would also be required to remove it - but I think the distinction between wearing a piece of obligatory religious clothing and an optional one is sort of too irrelevant to make a fuss over, particularly since few items - ironically, the burka excepted - would impede on a crew member's ability to do their duty.
Essentially, the woman was asked to remove the cross in case it offended someone. Which is an offensive act in itself, as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
In public, people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. If somebody has a problem with it, they should deal with that accordingly. Nobody should ever be disallowed to wear anything except for when they're in or on private property.
This is why libertarians complain so much about governments banning things. It removes personal responsibility from the equation. There are already legal methods in place for a Jew to deal with a man in a Nazi costume - this could easily be considered a violation of the Jew's right to liberty. But the act of wearing a Nazi uniform should not be outlawed, because that violates everybody's right to liberty.
Policy is irrelevant. A private property owner should be allowed to deny services to anybody for [/i]any[/i] reason. Maybe they have a zit on their face that bothers the property owner. You cannot consider the rights of a customer on private property until you have considered the rights of the property owner, which are the means by which the customer may or may not gain access to said property to begin with.
Offensive, yes, and certainly not recommended. Any reasonable business owner would probably not deny access to many people because it would be bad press. Businesses need profit to operate, and bad press hurts profit.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
I think it's more a case of what that uniform would represent, than the actual process of whether wearing it is a right or not.
Again - I agree with you that in public, you should be free to wear whatever you want. But if you're doing so on behalf of, say, a white supremacist group that goes around torturing ethnic minorities each night (extreme example, but an example nonetheless), then wearing that clothing should probably be considered an exception to the rule.
On the flip side, I suppose you could say that at least it makes them identifiable. Someone you wouldn't bother braking for if they crossed the road, perhaps.
I think the issue in this particular case was that this employee was being singled out, when members of other religions were allowed to wear their own appropriate religious apparel.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it - if this had been the other way around, say - and the lady was allowed to wear her cross on duty, and Muslims were allowed to wear headscarfs, but a Sikh was banned from wearing his turban - would you still consider this a matter for the rights of the employer, or simply religious discrimination on behalf of the employer?
Agreed.
I think you and I are basically on the same page with this Keef, and I certainly understand where you're coming from - it's equality of rights, basically, apply one set of rules to everyone, fairly - but there's a common sense element too, and banning someone from wearing a cross on duty seems a little lacking in common sense.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
I agree on the cross, the lady should sue the company, it did not change any performance or did not have any function to ask this. However the one exploiting the airport can have as rule that there can not be any external sign of religion, it is private property, so they would also refuse the Burqua.
The case of the Burqa is misrepresented all the time IMHO:
It is not about the freedom to wear what you want, it is about can a society limit freedoms to protect Human Rights?
The French state that they limit the freedom to cover your face so that they can limit murders (Human Right to live) and defend equality (Human Right to be seen as an equal individual). Limiting murders by being able to identify people quickly after a crime, defending equality by fighting suppression of women.
They have a subjective reasoning, a reasoning that people that value Liberty (Human Right to your own destiny) do not appreciate. But they do not imprison you for covering your face, they just limit the places you can do it.
I'm convinced that the Burqa was introduced to protect women, but it is misused. Why are there no men wearing Burqas? Do they not need protection? Are they not equal?
So the French misuse "the fact to need to be able to identify"; the others misuse "the protection of persons". What you value most is up to you.
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
Would women be able to go to their countries in Daisy Dukes and Bikini tops? What about staying topless at their beaches? The answer is, the people who did this, either would be jailed, or killed, so what makes it okay for them to wear them here? Wanna live in our countries, gotta follow our rules. Just like we would if we went to your countries.
Similar threads
- Poll
