Burqa

[Scaff]

You kill your own arguments here, if I see on a camera your face and not a Burqa or Barney the Dinosaur identification will be a lot easier.
Your convinced me your want a ban against "Barney the Dinosaur", guess what this is already included in the legislation we are talking about. Neat not!

How do I kill my own argument here?

I don't unless you are advocating that we must be identifiable at anytime, in which case we may as well have CCTV in our homes.

You have also failed to show me how this law will address skiers, brides (or anyone wearing a veil), motorcyclists who do not immediately remove their helmet when stopped, etc. Unless the laws are to be enforced equally then they are illegal.

Criminals (of any flavour) do not pop a ski mark or balaclava on before they leave the house to rob a bank (replace with any crime you want here). They wait until the very last minute to do so, and lets be honest they are not exactly going to be bothered by the law anyway.

Bank Robber 1: Quick put your mask on we are about to perpetuate extreme violence and terror in order to fund our criminal lifestyle.

Bank Robber 2: We can't do that, do you not know its illegal to cover your face!!!!

Bank Robber 1: Well that's 🤬 the whole plan up then, best we go straight.

As stated before, as soon as you make laws you will contradict yourself.
Safety for the one, religious practice for the other.

If religious practice endangers the lives of others we already have more than enough laws in Europe to deal with that. The simple fact is that this law will not stop a single crime, nor will in reduce terrorism (in fact it is clearly more likely to drive terrorist recruitment up). On top of that, unless it is applied with equal vigour to all, its also illegal.

Just as example:
I declare myself god of vince_fieroism a new religion. (this post is proof of my religion).
My religion has one rule: "Clothing is a waste of resources, your skin is sufficient to protect you, do not wear clothing".

Now I go naked on a world tour to spread my word: I will be arrested in most countries. All I did was "manifest my religion in practice".

I fail to see the difference with the Burqa.

To be honest as no exact definition of what constitutes a religion exists in Europe (that I am aware of), then providing you could prove that you followed your life to this rule you could argue you case in court.

However (and it is a big however) you would already be in breach of long-standing public decency laws, and that is how the Burqa differs. Europe had to invent new laws to 'outlaw' the Burqa, until that was done people wearing them were doing nothing illegal.

An in the fact that people who cover or obscure their face with other items of clothing are unlikely to fall foul of these new laws and I find in rather obvious why people are getting more than a bit angry about it.

So again: There are laws in countries to defend the human rights of the population, and when you are there "Live by the rules!".

==========

So what we really need is a proof that in the European context a law that forbids covering your face is useless.

Conclusion till now, Europeans think it is not useless.
The quick scan of the :
Understanding Terrorism Lessons of the Past - Indicators for the Future

did not give any points on this either.

Yes it does cover it quite clearly, I even quoted the exact section that describes it. That is unless you think that putting in place a law that quite clearly targets Islam is not going to be seen as "political exclusion and authoritative excesses". Two of the three main drivers behind terrorist recruitment.

The law is not workable, illegal and will achieve the exact opposite of that which people claim (to make people safer). As such the law (in my opinion) should not exist and quite frankly am glad that the UK is ignoring this kind of intolerant, self-defeating nonsense.


Scaff

 

[Danoff]

On 31 March 2010 the Belgian Chamber Committee on the Interior unanimously approved legislation instating a nation-wide ban on wearing face covering clothing in public.

Except for the exceptions.

That is your opinion. Honestly it shocks me.
It seems to me one of the best references on the domain, if you have a better one please share.

The US bill of rights.

Look, the UN list of "human rights" is nothing more than a buffet of things we'd all like to have but that require you to screw people over to have provided to you. The list is full of crap that requires its own listed rights to be infringed. It's nonsense. It's a purely nonsensical, laughable, useless document.

I think we do agree:
1) Europe has the right to assure the security of the people on their territory. Pro-restriction.
2) People should have the right to wear what they want. Pro-freedom.


The discussion is just between people that prefer 1 or 2. It is a preference, you can discuss, but I do not see a wrong in any of the choices.

We do not agree on number one. No government has the ability or charter to assure security (domestically). Governments can assure justice.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Is this legal where you are?

It is not where I live.

------------------------------------

I´m sorry but this is ridiculous:

If you do not want to see it, it is your appreciation. We want to see it.

* I state a law that is valid, I do not have to defend all its practical implications, pay yourself a lawyer
* US law is valid in the US only, the UN tries to put frameworks down for international guidelines
* People here are stating that laws are illegal, can not be issued, on which authority? You are assuming a wrong implementation of the law on which facts?
* I believe there have been worse things then this law to support the recruitment basis for terrorists and those come not from the countries that want to introduce these laws


My Vince`Fieroism is based on Male Digambara monks. Please be warned about explicit content when you look this up.
I still do not understand why I can not run around naked in your countries.
Let me try to explain:
1} Your country can create laws on their territory
2} I have to obey

Exactly the same:
1} Europe can create laws that you can not cover your face on their territory
2} When in Europe you have to obey

You can state you do not agree with European laws, I can state I do not agree with US laws. We still have to obey. Actually I do not agree with many European laws.

I have to say I do not understand why you push an Anglo Saxon view to everyone.

I miss respect of the European view and international efforts in many posts here.

You do not want it, fine for you.
Europe wants it, because they see it as needed.
I still believe we got your point, I still believe many of you do not want to get ours.

Let´s be clear again:
* I do not support the creation of laws against Burqa´s
* I think the law is too restrictive
* I believe it would be a better world if we could do without this law

 

[Danoff]

* I state a law that is valid, I do not have to defend all its practical implications, pay yourself a lawyer

This is a pointless comment here. We're discussing the legitimacy of the law, not whether it is one.

* US law is valid in the US only, the UN tries to put frameworks down for international guidelines

The US bill of right is based on reason - which makes it applicable to everyone. The UN "bill of rights" is based on a nonsensical wishlist, which makes it applicable to no one.

* People here are stating that laws are illegal, can not be issued, on which authority?

Human rights.

* I believe there have been worse things then this law to support the recruitment basis for terrorists and those come not from the countries that want to introduce these laws

Yes, there have been worse rights violations in other nations. Who cares? That doesn't change anything about this discussion.

I still do not understand why I can not run around naked in your countries.

Me neither.

Let me try to explain:
1} Your country can create laws on their territory
2} I have to obey

Exactly the same:
1} Europe can create laws that you can not cover your face on their territory
2} When in Europe you have to obey

Pointless. We're discussing the legitimacy and intelligence of laws - not what the law is.

You can state you do not agree with European laws, I can state I do not agree with US laws. We still have to obey. Actually I do not agree with many European laws.

That's what we're discussing here - the fact that many of us do not agree with the laws. This is not a discussion of whether or not people should obey those laws (though that would be an interesting side discussion).

I have to say I do not understand why you push an Anglo Saxon view to everyone.

I push Human Rights on every and anyone because they are inalienable. Human rights know no culture, national origin, or political party.

I miss respect of the European view and international efforts in many posts here.

Don't take it personally, I have no respect for most of the US government on exactly the same basis.

You do not want it, fine for you.
Europe wants it, because they see it as needed.

But it isn't right. Maybe it's useful, but it isn't right. I believe I made this point earlier.

I still believe we got your point, I still believe many of you do not want to get ours.

Oh trust me, I get the European point of view on this loud and clear. The point of view is that rights are not inalienable. They are luxuries that can be curtailed if the political whims of the time wish for it to be so. Several members here have espoused that viewpoint perfectly. To them, and to anyone else that advocates rule of the mob, I suggest reading my signature and thinking about it.

Let´s be clear again:
* I do not support the creation of laws against Burqa´s
* I think the law is too restrictive
* I believe it would be a better world if we could do without this law

...but you believe that you don't live in that "better world".

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

It IS about which comes first. Its also how MANY people believe in it.

 

[Keef]

It IS about which comes first. Its also how MANY people believe in it.

And that's why your location is "Soviet Russia". Soviet Russia no longer exists, sorry to burst your bubble. It failed.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

@ Danoff thanks that explained a lot.


In general:
Please try to use the next format (yes I'm into rules):

I understand that Belgians:

Me as ??? citisen has the opinion:

It will help me understand your respect for us and I hope for all it will make clear where we have differences in opinion.

=============

Let me give an example:

I understand that US citisens:
* Seem to believe the "UN Universal declarations of Human rights" is a joke since there are inconsistencies
* Seem to believe there "Bill of rights" has a more valid basis
* Believe Freedom is the most essential right
* Have the freedom of speach and do not have to follow my rules
* Do not believe in all US laws

Me as Belgian citisen has the opinion:
That the Bill of rights, by including "The right to carry arms" and excluding "The right on a secure environment" is putting the security at the responsibility of the individual.
Not a valid option for me.

I believe we in Europe can put security measures, like immediate identification above the requirement of a limited group to do their relegious practices, it is a matter of appreciation.
"UN Universal declarations of Human rights" is still the only international reference and pushing something else to countries is not respecting international relationships. I bet you can use these declarations too in a smart way.

Do not believe in all European laws.

We have the opinion that to follow the UN Declarations of Human rights is essential and even critisize you for not applying them.
We have the option to ignore your ideas completely as long as we adhere to the UN Declarations of Human rights.

I understand that Scaff :
* Seem to believe the restriction of the Burqa will nurish the inflow for terrorist organisations.
* Seems to believe that I personally have to explain him all the laws in my country
* The new laws are created to attack the Muslim community.
* Identification is not needed

Me as Belgian citisen has the opinion:
* we do not have a restriction on the Burqa, but on full facial wear.
* there is no new law for me, this is a change from a communal law that always existed in my lifetime to a federal law.
* Identification has always been there in Belgium and it is an essential point to attribute responsibility. This is a measure to re-enforce this.
On the picture series, we will do a check on 100%, since 2 are covering their face (they could have a valid reason) and the other person reminds me of a wanted person. You will only check 33% since you believe the people covering their face are exercising normal rights.
* Terrorist inflow has been more propagated by actions on Muslim terrain (Palestina, Irak, Afganistan) and communication of world leaders about the fight against terrorism then this law.
* I'm not a legal advisor (actually I'm quite close in my job, but on a very limited part of Luxembourgisch law)

Recognises that the media and politicians in Europe sell this law regularly as anti-Burqua, which is wrong and against the Muslim community and most likely anti constitutional.
Recognises that it would be better to live in a world where this law was not needed and that the law is too restrictive + impractical.

=======================

I understand that most of the world:
* finds it amoral to run around naked

Me as Vince-Fieroism adept and the Male Digambara monks have the opinion:
* you put too much attachment to your body and detachment from your body-culture would be a better way then legislation that restricts my religious practices.

=======================

NissanSkylineN1
Its also how MANY people believe in it.

It is not:
* In Belgium I saw somewhere the number of 400 people wearing full face covering clothing for Islam motivations. On a population of 10 000 000. that is not a lot.
* Every single person of these 10 000 000 has the same rights, no matter if they have big ears, a missing nose or strange ideas.
* Grouping people is the basis of prejudice!

Now what is the case is that the government, representing a majority (so many) is putting laws in place to protect the rights.

I agree that this government, might not really represent a majority and might work on an other agenda. This is why it is essential to discuss, even the rights of one person.


=======================

I know one of the critics on me personally are that I hide behind the existing law.
It reminds me of Britney Spears stating "I believe what the president says" (If I remember correctly this was concerning the intervention in Irak).

However I have to admit that I can not state the full reasons why our government wanted this law (I do not read enough news papers I know, I do not have the time for that either).
I did state I accept the law, since I still do believe in identification. You do not OK.
I do still state that I do not believe the reasons behind the law are as pure as they are in written in the law and the practice of this law will be difficult.

=======================
Yes there are differences in opinion.
Till now I have the opinion that the feedback is too much:
* I'm right and you are wrong
* You do illegal things, because I believe it should be illegal
* The Anglo-Saxon system is the only good one, you are wrong to think differently.

I thank people that show when this is not the case!

 

[Danoff]

In general:
Please try to use the next format (yes I'm into rules):

I have no idea what you're asking for here.

I understand that US citisens:
* Seem to believe the "UN Universal declarations of Human rights" is a joke since there are inconsistencies

Probably not true. I'm a very uncommon US citizen.

* Seem to believe there "Bill of rights" has a more valid basis

This isn't an opinion, it can only be based on reasoning.

* Believe Freedom is the most essential right

Freedom from coercion is the very first step to deriving rights.

That the Bill of rights, by including "The right to carry arms" and excluding "The right on a secure environment" is putting the security at the responsibility of the individual.
Not a valid option for me.

Government's can't offer security (it's not possible) - only justice (less impossible).

I believe we in Europe can put security measures, like immediate identification above the requirement of a limited group to do their relegious practices, it is a matter of appreciation.

You believe in infringing human rights.

"UN Universal declarations of Human rights" is still the only international reference and pushing something else to countries is not respecting international relationships. I bet you can use these declarations too in a smart way.

"International" doesn't make it right. Logic has no nationality.

We have the opinion that to follow the UN Declarations of Human rights is essential and even critisize you for not applying them.

Then I criticize you for not applying them - because they're impossible to apply.

We have the option to ignore your ideas completely as long as we adhere to the UN Declarations of Human rights.

You can't adhere to it because it's self-contradictory. That's what makes it a silly document.

 

[Joel]

I just can't comprehend being OK with giving up human rights for a bit of security. I mean, we do it in Canada all the time, but that doesn't make me OK with it.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

And that's why your location is "Soviet Russia". Soviet Russia no longer exists, sorry to burst your bubble. It failed.

What? Its called a god damn joke. Im sorry but I've heard of Picture unrelated. But your sentence is "sentence unrelated"

 

[Keef]

What? Its called a god damn joke. Im sorry but I've heard of Picture unrelated. But your sentence is "sentence unrelated"

Your statement made it sound like you support mod rule. What were you referring to?

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

What I mean is that "Vince-fieroism" is not old, popular and has many supporters compared to Islam. Islam is old, has millions of believers. "Vince-Fieroism" is newer, and has little believers. Now in France, the Burqa rule is horrible because its got many muslims in it. In Belgium, its more OK because there are less believers and the percentage of believers compared to the population is less than France. Now referring to that Soviet Russia thing. That is a joke. You used my "location" in a debate KNOWING that I don't live in Soviet Russia. You took an obvious joke and used it against me, which is not right. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Danoff]

I'm trying to figure out why your location is "Solviet" instead of "Soviet".

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Fixed!

 

[Keef]

The reason I mentioned your supposed location is because you seem to think that it's okay to infringe a group's rights as long as there aren't many people in that group. That actually sounds quite like something you'd hear in Soviet Russia, and that's not a good thing. It's just a coincidence that you support this idea and happen to think Soviet Russia is funny? Seems to me that you like the idea of a communist state. Disregard for individual rights is what they do best.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Communism is good, as long as theres no corruption. Except we all know that Karl Marx's dreams will never come true. There's gonna be that asshole who screws everything up.
To comment/answer your comment, well its the majority. Majority rules. The "Vince-Fieroism" is a minority. But don't get me wrong. In France, Islam is a minority, but its still large compared to "Vince-Fieroism" if it existed. Do you get what I mean? Like OK, its a minority, but its a BIG minority, big as in a large population for a minority.

 

[Danoff]

Communism is good, as long as theres no corruption.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Equal outcome for unequal effort is not good.

 

[Omnis]

The system by which Communism functions-- that is, the estimations of a bureaucrat-- is inherently corrupted.

You're really living up to that trollface avatar.

 

[Joel]

Communism is good, as long as theres no corruption. Except we all know that Karl Marx's dreams will never come true. There's gonna be that asshole who screws everything up.
To comment/answer your comment, well its the majority. Majority rules. The "Vince-Fieroism" is a minority. But don't get me wrong. In France, Islam is a minority, but its still large compared to "Vince-Fieroism" if it existed. Do you get what I mean? Like OK, its a minority, but its a BIG minority, big as in a large population for a minority.

Mommy has two twin sons, Billy and Josh, who are both fully capable mentally and physically.

"So Billy, you finished mowing the lawn, washing the car, vaccuming the carpet, mopping the floors, bathing the dog, and trimming the hedges?" "Yes mom!" "Great!, here's 20$!"

"Now Josh, did you finish putting the clean dishes away?" "Yes mom!" "Great, here's 20$!"


^Communism in a nutshell. Doesn't sound very good to me.

 

[Omnis]

Even if Mom paid Billy $100, it still wouldn't be sustainable. Without a price system, people can only make arbitrary estimates. Assumptions and guesses are not enough to sustain an economy.

 

[Joel]

Even if Mom paid Billy $100, it still wouldn't be sustainable. Without a price system, people can only make arbitrary estimates. Assumptions and guesses are not enough to sustain an economy.

Yep. Communism relies on one grand overseer of pricing. Not gonna work. Ever.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Since I have to work, to get the pay in and was getting the impression to be skwibbeling and not progressing, I had the decision to stop posting here in the numbers I did in the last days.

However I want to thank all that have contributed in the discussions with me and helped me to come to my conclusion below. The goal was to discuss more on general philosophy then on details, I needed some reflection too come to this.
It is also one of my hopes that this will help other people to explain the points clearly with due respect of the different views.


It seems that it is generally accepted here:
* All people have their full human rights.
* A law against the Burqa, infringes the human right of religious (Islam or orthodox judiism here) practice. This is not the thread topic, the thread topic is a "Law that forbids the Burqa".
* Laws are restrictive and should be used with due care. Laws that are general will be unpracticle.

Now I have been discussing the Belgian law, that forbids full facial covering clothing, so indirectly forbids the Burqa.

People against this law had the opinion:
* There is one set of human rights
* The UN Declaration of Human rights has too many inconveniences to be used as reference
* The Belgian law infringes the right of Islam practice, so is illegal since it violates human rights
* The Belgian law puts measures in place that are ineffective (does not stop terrorism) and counter productive (will support terrorist recruitement).
* It is impossible to guarantee security, since freedom and security are contradictory (founding fathers of the US) and freedom is primary.
* Identification of persons on sight is not needed.

My opinion is:
* A law against the Burqa would be unconstitutional (did not look this up).
* Belgian is a souvereign state and has to put a legal system in place. They have in their appreciation of the UN Declaration of Human rights, more specifically the right on security, created this law. (I do seem to have had issues in communication: translating droit = right vs systeme de droit = legal system and not rights system)
* Any set of laws or rules will end up being contradictory, including Human rights (why otherwise would we be discussing this)
* The UN Declaration of Human rights is a set of rules that has been internationally accepted and for me the main reference
* The priority on the contradictions in Human rights is a cultural appreciation
* Identification is the cournerstone of responsibility, so essential in a legal system. Indeed to attribute freedom you do not need identification.
* Anglo-Saxon culture puts freedom first, which is not the appreciation of Belgian culture.
* The Belgian legislation puts the need to indentify a person (their appreciation of the right on security) above the Burqa (right on religious practices)
* A law that states everybody should have freedom (nudity vs moral) is as impractical as a law that states no one can cover their face (security vs religious practices)
* Some people see in this law that it will give women a face, leading Muslim women out of opression. I still do believe that education and guarantee that adults can exercise their human rights (including religious practices) is more
* bounded rationality (not being able to consider all facts possible) leads to laws that are less then perfect, improve them.

Also my opinion:
People (still including me) that are in favour of a law that indirectly forbits the Burqa should:
* consider if this really is effective for the goal it is aiming for (e.g. does it stop crime, can you work with it in practice)
* consider if the side effects (terrorist recruitement) are not more destructive then the benefit
* considering the 2 points above does the total value of this law outweigh the injustice that is done by infringing the human right of people on religious practice
* consider would my world be a better place with or without this law
* consider do we not give up on fundemantal human rights withoug

People that are against points brought up by other people should:
* consider am I not defending my set of cultural priorities in Human Rights as the only right way (e.g. security should never be in there) and express myself as "In my opinion ..." or can I use a set of rules, e.g. As US citisen I follow the Bill of right which states that ... and your arguments go against this set of rules I adhere to and see as fundamental.
* what is the other person really trying to reach, can I explain how to reach this without infringing human rights, can I give examples
* do I understand the other persons view, should I verify I understood this correctly, can I give an example where I show I understood (e.g. I see the restriction on running around naked in the world (a religious practice of some Buddhist monks) as wrong as a resticion on covering yourself completely.)
* can I use my own experience or the last 2 paragaphs here to help people express themselves in a way that
1) they clearly express their points
2) they clearly express they understood the other persons points
3) this is not skwibbeling on details, but helping to progress the evolutions of thoughts through examples, can I bring it to a higher level more on the level of principles, basic rights so we can agree and go back down
4) this is done with due respect (this is again very cultural), Will what I write not be seen as an attack on themselves by the person, which will probably make them distance themselves further from my argument and stop the discussion. Best seems, question "Did your consider ...? In my opinion this does ...)

Again thanks to the people that helped me come to this.

 

[GT Pro]

The bad thing about Burqas is that it hides the beauty of Middle-Eastern women, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but Middle-Eastern women are quite easily the most stunning women in the world. It's a tragedy, really.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Well if you think it that way, I guess. I see what you mean there.
And Omnis, you don't want to see me troll....
ANYWAYS, to what I was saying. Well you have to admit, at a point in history, one party WILL be ignored and made laws against. For example the native Americans in Canada. They got so frustrated that they blocked our highway (401) a while back. But for Islam which has a MASSIVE population in France and one of the biggest Muslim populations in Europe. That's wrong. Now lets say that Vince-Fieroism had a large population like that too. Making laws against them would be wrong too. But I'm not saying that making laws against small groups is right either. Its toatally wrong. But just not as severe.

 

[Omnis]

Sorry, I was just saying how if were indeed trolling, you would have been doing a good job. It was a compliment.

Fiero, I think you're missing some of the point to some of the pro-burqa arguments.

Also, freedom and security are not contradictory. Rather, giving up freedom just does not provide security.

 

[Danoff]

* Any set of laws or rules will end up being contradictory, including Human rights (why otherwise would we be discussing this)
* The UN Declaration of Human rights is a set of rules that has been internationally accepted and for me the main reference
* The priority on the contradictions in Human rights is a cultural appreciation

This is really a topic for the "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" or "Human Rights" threads. We disagree on what rights are - and from that starting point I very much doubt that we will come to an agreement on this topic. Furthermore, you don't think there is a right answer to that question (invalidating the concept of rights), and I do. However, I'll make one point not human rights related.

I'm guessing the Belgium still allows motorcycle helmets to be used. The fact that they allow this renders other face covering laws a moot point - and I doubt very much that Belgium will consider outlawing motorcycle helmets.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I'm guessing the Belgium still allows motorcycle helmets to be used. The fact that they allow this renders other face covering laws a moot point - and I doubt very much that Belgium will consider outlawing motorcycle helmets.

I understood that people:
* fear that this law against full facial coverage will be applied in specific cases (the Burqa) only.

Indeed this has been a thought on my mind, since people asked.

My conclusion was surprising and I did want to come back to this, untill the idea had matured.

1) Full facial coverage is not allowed = very impractical law.
2) You should not fine everyone directly. This person, it seems on John Street:

should not be fined.

So I came to the conclusion as exception:
People that are wearing full facial covering protection, for the activity that they are doing (motor cycling, skiing, welding, ....) can have this protection during the activity they do.

3) Bringing this back to the Burqa:
Islam women (I guess the Orthodox jews are the same) wear this when in public places.
It is to respect the Qur'an statements on decent clothing and to protect them from indecent views of others.
So for me a person wearing protective clothing (a Burqa) in an activity (being in a public place) falls under the exception of 2. I have trouble to see this as a less valid protection then a Motorcycle helmet.

A Burqa will not stop rape, a helmet will not avoid you from dying.

=> This reduces the applicability of this law to checking if this person is an Islam woman and if so to tolerate the Burqa. Adding this to my vision that I already refuted the goal of "reducing oppression of women" for this law.

The only remaining reason I see for the law is to facilitate the question on identification and a legal reason to stop people that are clearly trying to avoid identification. I'm not the specialist in this domain, but it seems to me this probably was already covered in other texts.

==============================

Edit: just answered this one.

The bad thing about Burqas is that it hides the beauty of Middle-Eastern women, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but Middle-Eastern women are quite easily the most stunning women in the world. It's a tragedy, really.

The Burqa exists because of pervert thoughts like this. However, I believe it is your human right to think this, as long as your actions are not wrong.
I have seen some Middle-Eastern women too that I thought would be better looking with Burqa, but I would never force them to wear one for that reason.
The diversity in the world is a beautiful thing!

 

[GT Pro]

The Burqa exists because of pervert thoughts like this.

You're not secretly posting from a nunnery are you? To admire something for it's beauty is NOT perversion in the slightest. On the other hand, even if one were to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of women for the purposes of sexual gratification (a necessary element for one to be engaging in perversion in this context), it still doesn't constitute perversion due to the fact that it is not an abnormal means of doing so. I know I am making a technical, definitional point here, but, I'm just saying.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

To admire something for it's beauty is NOT perversion in the slightest.

On the other hand, even if one were to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of women for the purposes of sexual gratification (a necessary element for one to be engaging in perversion in this context), it still doesn't constitute perversion due to the fact that it is not an abnormal means of doing so. I know I am making a technical, definitional point here, but, I'm just saying.

The first sentence is correct and my statement said more about me (insufficient trust in others) then about you.
e.g. I like the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe (explicit content warning for people that would look this up), before I found out the explicit content of his work (I had missed the small details ). I did not change my mind, the man was a great photographer, not clear if his thoughts were perverted, but I'm certain you can like his work without being a pervert.

For the rest, oxford advanced learners dictionary on pervert:

"a person whose sexual behaviour is not thought to be normal or acceptable by most people"

I do believe that most people wearing a Burqa will think "appreciate the aesthetic beauty of women for the purposes of sexual gratification" is a sexual behaviour that is not acceptable, so pervert.
Same point with Robert Mapplethorpe, who seems to have become a prime example of censorship after they canceled his exhibition "The Perfect Moment", this happened since some persons saw his work as perverted.

Clear problem with perversion: It is linked to the moral (normal and acceptable) and thus very culturally linked.

 

[Hollow]

I read this whole thread, it just saddens me how misinformed people still are about this issue. Though I can't actually blame anyone as you are all sitting thousands of miles away from where these "burka" women come from. People fail to realize that their backgrounds aren't as complicated as everyone makes it sound like.

It's a different world out here, you got to see it to believe it.