[LarryRda]

In the UK, a Conservative MP said that they would never ban the burqa because that would be "un-British". I think all hope has gone in this country.

[turbutbamethyg]

That might be a better approach. But even then they should make allowances for bad weather (or maybe it is just the Finnish winter that makes you want to get covered from top to toe).

Yes and there might be other rational and necessary reasons to mask or cover ones face. Medical for instance. But for pure religious reasons? Nah, no strong valid arguments for that.

[paralelogram]

Classify

Burqaface2th.jpg

[Stivenslivakovishhhs]

That lady would have scared the shit out of me if I had seen her walking on the street when I was a child and afraid of ghosts more than anything else..

Can you imagine a 5 year old boy who's parents tries to tell him ghosts do not exists is sitting eating ice cream in Amsterdam or London and a group of these are passing?
http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/niqabs.jpg

Like my mother said about this, when she was young there were just mediterraneans and eastern europans and latinos as foreigners here, no one would even have talked about banning niqab since they didn't know it existed or at least not would not be seen here.

And slick willy talks about Western Europe being enlightned and multicultural like its connected. Bullshit, if you with multiculture means muslim Asians and Africans, then western europe is gonna go back to dark medieval or even worse.

When I was in Budapest it felt so modern and 21th century there because there wasn't a lot of walking tents like I had to see everywhere in London.

Sanjub, niqab is sicker than sick Sicky Sickson too.

[finasteride]

To be fair we have to ban another clothes too,

Attachment 27395

[TeveVikep]

You can´t enter in public places (airports, subways, schools, offices,banks, stadiums,malls, or driving...) with a mask covering your face and hiding your identity. There´s actually a need for identification in many european countries. A police officer can ask you for your ID in Spain (and he checks that your face is the one that appears in the photo) when he wants. Also your ID is necessary when you pay with credit card or when you enter in some public places like clubs... And again they check your face and your ID photo. It´s not necessary that a female officer has to come to check your face, it´s stupid and backwards. If you don´t feel confortable with it, you can always come back to Pakistan
Do you think police and security cameras are some kind of urban decoration?

Do you think I can go like this to the University or to my office?

What you mention are either private premises or special ones. There are generally speaking no legal grounds for a general ban. A club is not a public place. It is a private premise where the owner can dictate, within certain boundaries, specific demands for admission.

Futhermore the opportunity to hide ones identity is a fundamental democratic right. Take the example of publishers, in a press-context, where the publisher is purposefully held legally accountable for the published material in order to protect the anonymity of the author of the article. This institution was created in order to protect and enable anonymous criticism of the powers that be.

Another example is the freedom of assembly, which, in my opinion, implies the right to anonymity. Imagine that you are participating in a demonstration against taxes (or burqas!) and your employer or teacher or local police officer or neighbor strongly disagrees with your viewpoint. If you did not have the right to disguise yourself in public you could easily be targeted with retaliatory measures - such as loosing your job, get suspended from school, get beaten by the cops or harassed by your neighbors. You do see why disguises would be a good idea in a democratic society?

As for ID, why do we still have photos in them when they take your fingerprints for every EU passport issued? Photos were not considered enough anyway.

Why is it necessary with female gynecologists? Or separate dressing rooms in swimming pools? We could conceivably do without all this superstitious stuff. We could even do without clothing and walk around like savages in the African jungles! All nice and natural - and free from inhibitions! It is the hallmark of a civilized society that one segregates women from men.

[Trikaduliana]

Our prime minister said that burqa is opression of women.

I think that aspect is the most popular motivation.

[OgrGlgHu]

What you mention are either private premises or special ones. There are generally speaking no legal grounds for a general ban. A club is not a public place. It is a private premise where the owner can dictate, within certain boundaries, specific demands for admission.

A subway, an airport or a football stadium (most of them) are public places. Same for schools or universities. The owner is the State.

Another example is the freedom of assembly, which, in my opinion, implies the right to anonymity. Imagine that you are participating in a demonstration against taxes (or burqas!) and your employer or teacher or local police officer or neighbor strongly disagrees with your viewpoint. If you did not have the right to disguise yourself in public you could easily be targeted with retaliatory measures - such as loosing your job, get suspended from school, get beaten by the cops or harassed by your neighbors. You do see why disguises would be a good idea in a democratic society?

No I dont see it, it´s very stupid. So I have to hide myself in order to not being attacked by others because they disagree with me? And do you call that "democracy"? If somebody attacks me he will go to jail , i dont need to wear a mask covering my face. That´s the opposite of freedom.

Why is it necessary with female gynecologists? Or separate dressing rooms in swimming pools? We could conceivably do without all this superstitious stuff. We could even do without clothing and walk around like savages in the African jungles! All nice and natural - and free from inhibitions! It is the hallmark of a civilized society that one segregates women from men.

Uh? So showing your face is the same than showing your cock or your pussy? I didnt know that. Where do you live? Strange cullture you have there. Our women aren´t that submissive.
And by the way, there are tons of men gynecologists, actually more than women. If there are gynecologist women is not because some weird moral requirement, but because they studied for it.
Sexism = civilized society? Great, I guess we were really civilized in the Middle Age compared with nowadays right?

[shkarpet$]

I'm conflicted about the whole burqa banning thing. On one hand I think it's rather silly and restrictive to ban a piece of clothing (what's next, ban tank tops? Booty shorts? Jeans?), but at the same time, I'm just repulsed by face coverings like the niqab and burqa. Seeing them out in public regularly would make me sick.

[isogeople]

I know what you mean. Once I was in J.F. airport, and I saw this muslim family. The wife was wearing a burqa, and was asked to remove it so they could see her face. Then, she turned her face to his husband, who nudded giving her his approvation. I was really disgusted to see such opression and inequality

[agildeta]

I know what you mean. Once I was in J.F. airport, and I saw this muslim family. The wife was wearing a burqa, and was asked to remove it so they could see her face. Then, she turned her face to his husband, who nudded giving her his approvation. I was really disgusted to see such opression and inequality

The weird thing is that some people pretend to show this pathetic submissive behaviour as a sign of civilization and enlightment. It´s like a dog looking for the approval of his master.
Horrible. I think just sick men with some serious complexes going on can be attracted to women who act like that.
I want my woman to be my partner, not my pet.

[Alex]

I know what you mean. Once I was in J.F. airport, and I saw this muslim family. The wife was wearing a burqa, and was asked to remove it so they could see her face. Then, she turned her face to his husband, who nudded giving her his approvation. I was really disgusted to see such opression and inequality

That's sick

[Dreaming]

Maybe some people didnt notice it, but the ban on the burka is a political strategy to push the muslim immigrants out of Europe it wont affect the normal people life.

[shinesw]

I'm conflicted about the whole burqa banning thing. On one hand I think it's rather silly and restrictive to ban a piece of clothing (what's next, ban tank tops? Booty shorts? Jeans?), but at the same time, I'm just repulsed by face coverings like the niqab and burqa. Seeing them out in public regularly would make me sick.

So basically you're caught between not wanting to appear racist, but equally not wanting to appear sexist? Lol, liberals for ya...

[AngelBee]

Actually, I think it has to do more with security and ending radical Islam (which is the problem). Because there are a lot of muslims women who won't care if they can't use a burqa. Some of the most liberals wouldn't even care if they can't use any veil.

---------- Post added 2010-10-02 at 16:35 ----------

The weird thing is that some people pretend to show this pathetic submissive behaviour as a sign of civilization and enlightment.

You've actually heard that? Never in my life I've heard something like that, and I would be shocked if I did.

---------- Post added 2010-10-02 at 16:37 ----------

So basically you're caught between not wanting to appear racist, but equally not wanting to appear sexist? Lol, liberals for ya...

Banning the burque is not racist. It's against women opression (and also for security reasons)...

[agolutuaddiff]

Actually, I think it has to do more with security and ending radical Islam (which is the problem). Because there are a lot of muslims woman who won't care if they can't use a burqa. Some of the most liberals wouldn't even care if they can't use any veil.

The burqa is not a piece of cloth that is obliged by the quran. Neither is the niqaab. These are cultural things that are to be found in islamic societies, yes. Nevertheless they are not islamic, just as burning witches is not christian.

Furthermore i dont believe in radical islam. You are either a more cultural muslim that doesnt take the whole quran as the exact literal word of God/Allah. Or you adhere strict to all the rules, word for word, and yes you might become dangerous for 'infidels'

[Chito]

So basically you're caught between not wanting to appear racist, but equally not wanting to appear sexist? Lol, liberals for ya...

What does race have to do with it?

[zU8KbeIU]

The burqa is not a piece of cloth that is obliged by the quran. Neither is the niqaab. These are cultural things that are to be found in islamic societies, yes. Nevertheless they are not islamic, just as burning witches is not christian.

Furthermore i dont believe in radical islam. You are either a more cultural muslim that doesnt take the whole quran as the exact literal word of God/Allah. Or you adhere strict to all the rules, word for word, and yes you might become dangerous for 'infidels'

Yes, but the burqa is used by the most religious Muslims (I can't remember where I read this). Radical means extremist (far beyond the normal), so that's why banning the burqa limits them. The burqa banning surely isn't made as a "political strategy to get the muslim immigrants out of Europe". Mos probably it's for security reasons (identity) and for liberating muslim women.

[boXGWf04]

Personally, I don't really care if it's all that oppressive to women. Heck, there are even some women who are so seriously brainwashed that they actually want to wear this shit (or so they think...).

As I see it, the burqa ought to be banned simply because it's ultimately a matter of banning Islam, which I'm totally for anyway. I also agree with Azvarohi that an ordinary veil should not be banned.

Note to Mary: Islam doesn't advocate freedom of religion, so why defend a political ideology that opposes your right to religious freedom? And how is forcing women to wear a disgusting burqa, a matter of freedom?

[Proodustommor]

A subway, an airport or a football stadium (most of them) are public places. Same for schools or universities. The owner is the State.

The general rule is that it is not forbidden to cover your face in public places. It is also doubtful if a ban against this will pass in the European court of human rights.

There are a few exceptions. Airports are a special case because they are border crossings. A privately owned night club can be another one. Countries like Turkey get a pass when it comes to public buildings like Universities and such. But once again: the general rule is that you are free to cover as much as you want. For example wearing a morph suit.

No I dont see it, it´s very stupid. So I have to hide myself in order to not being attacked by others because they disagree with me? And do you call that "democracy"? If somebody attacks me he will go to jail , i dont need to wear a mask covering my face. That´s the opposite of freedom.

It doesn't have to be physical violence. It can be about social repercussions as well. Like I said: Losing your job, losing your standing in your social circle, etc. This is far from stupid. It has always been an important cause behind many bourgeois rights and freedoms.

Uh? So showing your face is the same than showing your cock or your pussy? I didnt know that. Where do you live? Strange cullture you have there. Our women aren´t that submissive.
And by the way, there are tons of men gynecologists, actually more than women. If there are gynecologist women is not because some weird moral requirement, but because they studied for it.
Sexism = civilized society? Great, I guess we were really civilized in the Middle Age compared with nowadays right?

Maybe for some people, culturally, it is! It has nothing to do with being submissive. If I show my face to a man, am I not in a way then submitting to that man? What if I want my looks to be reserved for my husband only? There are plenty of women who share themselves with everybody, so why should I have to?

---------- Post added 2010-10-02 at 23:45 ----------

I know what you mean. Once I was in J.F. airport, and I saw this muslim family. The wife was wearing a burqa, and was asked to remove it so they could see her face. Then, she turned her face to his husband, who nudded giving her his approvation. I was really disgusted to see such opression and inequality

Dude, if airport security suddenly asked my husband to remove his shirt I sure would appreciate if he at least looked at me before stripping. Or is mutual respect in a family a dead concept nowadays? I honestly don't see the problem. Why would she not seek the approval of her partner?

Look, wearing the burqa is a way for muslim women to preserve their modesty, and not as in Christianity to mark your submission to the man. Because that is what the Christian veil does. Asking her husband whether it is okay to compromise HER modesty.... I still fail to see the problem. You can use the puke-smiley all you want, I stand by my argument.