Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Is It Time To Ban Burkhas?


deadman

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
Guest Barebear
Thats just plain stupid. The burhka and trousers are both valid items of clothing. Both of which could be worn whilst commiting a crime.

Where as you couldn't travel with a Zebra in your car, firstly because it would be really difficult to get it in the car and secondly I suspect that it's not legal.

There seem to be three main arguments as to why the Burhkas should be banned:

1. Security reasons

2. It's an insult to women's rights

3. English people do not like it because it's too different.

IMO:

1. Is a valid concern.

2. Is a valid concern.

3. Is not a valid concern.

There are solutions to the concerns and one would be to ban it. However I just think thats the wrong solution.

Cant youe see your being disengenuous ? Of course both burkhas and trousers can be worn commiting a crime, but we identify people by there faces.

If you are alone in the middle of the night working as a cashier in a petrol station who are you going to be more concerned about ? The asian wearing a pair of jeans or the unknown and unidentifiable hiding behind a burkha ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't more petrol stations been stuck up by asians wearing jeans than people wearing burkhas?

It is perfectly sensible to require people wearing burkhas to remove them for things like airport security but banning them is about as foolish as making women wear them.

Following your logic, we should ban Asians not the clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
Guest AuntJess
Yes, I can't be bothered to get all anarchist over a few women with curtains on their heads.

To be honest it's more telling that we let our government tie us into to £17k each of debt and don't do anything. Rail at the burkhas instead though if it's what really gets your goat.

Apart from the points I made in an earlier post, about the manipulative and sexist aspects of this, I WILL rail against it if I find I have to jump thru' hoops to get a passport mugshot accepted , whilst aliens are allowed to wear a head covering for theirs.

What would YOU call that? Fair play? Equal rights?...Bloody mindedness? *rse licking the people who belong to the same culture as those financial bods who own this country? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
Guest AuntJess
A little something for our friendly BNP nut jobs,

This would seem to be on the wrong thread. What has pandering to female subjugation got to do with Muslims who fought in a war against fascism?

I noted that the grandsons reading their grandpas' letters were not subscribing to the full facial beard and 'gear' which we are told is essential for Muslims to be able to call themselves so.

I'll bet their wives aren't wearing burkhas either, so why does the British govt, have policies which pander to those Muslims who have not been "brought up to speed"? Why do passports of Muslim women not need to show their faces?

These are the issues which give the BNP their power - this silly inequality.

If you want to blame someone for the rise of the BNP, blame the British Govt. They are playing a 'deep' game, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
It is perfectly sensible to require people wearing burkhas to remove them for things like airport security but banning them is about as foolish as making women wear them.

Almost all muslim women you see wearing heardress have been forced to do so -- either directly by their family or with the help of social pressure by their community. The harassment for failing to comply can range from ostracisation to gang rape -- not wearing a headdress always carries a risk for a muslim women and always has to be defended against fundamentalist bigots verbal and physical violence are random times.

So many women wear the head dress despite the obvious discomfort and hygienic issues that arise, not because they want to, but because the hassle they get from strangers and people they know is quite serious at times if they dare not to.

And in the same way that we rather a guilty man goes free than an innocent man be condemned, so it is with those head dresses -- for as long as even one women is thought of as a prostitute when she does not wear those head dresses or in any way forced or shamed or coerced into wearing one, those religious head dresses should be banned as the oppressive tool they are, for as long as they bissect our communities of women into the categories of 'whores' and 'submissives' and are used by islamists as an identity flag that has political meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

A number of apposite and critical points have been missed in this argument:

1. An essential aspect of human interaction and social intercourse is human ability and reliance on facial expression: in conversation and particularly commerce, we rely on subconscious anaylsis of another person's expressions to deduce integrity: we also need access to facial expression in order to judge how any conversation is proceeding.

Think about it.

2. Women regularly drive in Burquas: they are thus restricted from their immediate environment and drastically impair essential spacial awareness: women naturally lack spacial awareness in any case and by driving, place other road users and pedestrians at risk:

3. A woman wearing a Burqua restricts her essential peripheral vision: yet another increased risk when driving:

4. Same goes for hearing impairment.

Anything in terms of religious oberservance (Although in the case of the Burqua it is cultural rather than religious) which impairs the adherant's physical agility ought properly to mean they are prevented from doing anything "Usual":

They then would have a clear choice: wear a Burqua OK, but don't drive.

There was a recent case where a magistrate was admonished for refusing to try a woman clad in a Burqua: I'm with the magistrate.

His ability and opportunity to decide on her honesty is based on many things but these would include facial expression.

Allowing incomers to impact so dramatically on so very many established social customs, mores and behavioural expectations is simply social euthanasia.

Moron Brown and his gang of muppets might just as well hand over the keys of state to Karachi.

Thganks to the Bleeding Hearts Ivory Tower Dwelling Liberal Do Gooders the UK is now behaving like a weak cur, laid on its back and exposing its vital belly to anyone wishing to ravage the state.

Totally pathetic!

:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
It is perfectly sensible to require people wearing burkhas to remove them for things like airport security but banning them is about as foolish as making women wear them.

Almost all muslim women you see wearing heardress have been forced to do so -- either directly by their family or with the help of social pressure by their community. The harassment for failing to comply can range from ostracisation to gang rape -- not wearing a headdress always carries a risk for a muslim women and always has to be defended against fundamentalist bigots verbal and physical violence are random times.

So many women wear the head dress despite the obvious discomfort and hygienic issues that arise, not because they want to, but because the hassle they get from strangers and people they know is quite serious at times if they dare not to.

And in the same way that we rather a guilty man goes free than an innocent man be condemned, so it is with those head dresses -- for as long as even one women is thought of as a prostitute when she does not wear those head dresses or in any way forced or shamed or coerced into wearing one, those religious head dresses should be banned as the oppressive tool they are, for as long as they bissect our communities of women into the categories of 'whores' and 'submissives' and are used by islamists as an identity flag that has political meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
Guest AuntJess
A number of apposite and critical points have been missed in this argument:

1. An essential aspect of human interaction and social intercourse is human ability and reliance on facial expression: in conversation and particularly commerce, we rely on subconscious anaylsis of another person's expressions to deduce integrity: we also need access to facial expression in order to judge how any conversation is proceeding.

Think about it.

2. Women regularly drive in Burquas: they are thus restricted from their immediate environment and drastically impair essential spacial awareness: women naturally lack spacial awareness in any case and by driving, place other road users and pedestrians at risk:

3. A woman wearing a Burqua restricts her essential peripheral vision: yet another increased risk when driving:

4. Same goes for hearing impairment.

Anything in terms of religious oberservance (Although in the case of the Burqua it is cultural rather than religious) which impairs the adherant's physical agility ought properly to mean they are prevented from doing anything "Usual":

They then would have a clear choice: wear a Burqua OK, but don't drive.

There was a recent case where a magistrate was admonished for refusing to try a woman clad in a Burqua: I'm with the magistrate.

His ability and opportunity to decide on her honesty is based on many things but these would include facial expression.

Allowing incomers to impact so dramatically on so very many established social customs, mores and behavioural expectations is simply social euthanasia.

Moron Brown and his gang of muppets might just as well hand over the keys of state to Karachi.

Thganks to the Bleeding Hearts Ivory Tower Dwelling Liberal Do Gooders the UK is now behaving like a weak cur, laid on its back and exposing its vital belly to anyone wishing to ravage the state.

Totally pathetic!

:angry:

These points aren't being missed - rather ignored - by posters who don't want to accept the futility of their own stance. Your point one, I covered in post #58, outlining the evolutionary and pro-survival aspects for humans of facial knowledge of others. The roots of this being in physiology/ neuro anatomy, they can scarce deny its significance or the fact that its existence nullifies these silly primitive 'fashion statements' from backward cultures.

Thery can however IGNORE it, as every time I have posted it, these 'ostriches' step gaily on, over my post, only to uphold the mantra " fascist", "racist" or "BNP-er." to whoever points out these anomalies.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. These people cannot plead ignorance, as so many of us have outlined the evolutionary, social, health and safety advantages of NOT wearing a mask that they haven't a leg to stand on.

They would be uttering their dogmatic mantra, if they were marching thru' the gates of Hell. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417
A number of apposite and critical points have been missed in this argument:

1. An essential aspect of human interaction and social intercourse is human ability and reliance on facial expression: in conversation and particularly commerce, we rely on subconscious anaylsis of another person's expressions to deduce integrity: we also need access to facial expression in order to judge how any conversation is proceeding.

Think about it.

2. Women regularly drive in Burquas: they are thus restricted from their immediate environment and drastically impair essential spacial awareness: women naturally lack spacial awareness in any case and by driving, place other road users and pedestrians at risk:

3. A woman wearing a Burqua restricts her essential peripheral vision: yet another increased risk when driving:

4. Same goes for hearing impairment.

Anything in terms of religious oberservance (Although in the case of the Burqua it is cultural rather than religious) which impairs the adherant's physical agility ought properly to mean they are prevented from doing anything "Usual":

They then would have a clear choice: wear a Burqua OK, but don't drive.

There was a recent case where a magistrate was admonished for refusing to try a woman clad in a Burqua: I'm with the magistrate.

His ability and opportunity to decide on her honesty is based on many things but these would include facial expression.

Allowing incomers to impact so dramatically on so very many established social customs, mores and behavioural expectations is simply social euthanasia.

Moron Brown and his gang of muppets might just as well hand over the keys of state to Karachi.

Thganks to the Bleeding Hearts Ivory Tower Dwelling Liberal Do Gooders the UK is now behaving like a weak cur, laid on its back and exposing its vital belly to anyone wishing to ravage the state.

Totally pathetic!

:angry:

Well, I'm essentially a liberal and I agree with your post. Ban the Burkha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
These points aren't being missed - rather ignored - by posters who don't want to accept the futility of their own stance. Your point one, I covered in post #58, outlining the evolutionary and pro-survival aspects for humans of facial knowledge of others. The roots of this being in physiology/ neuro anatomy, they can scarce deny its significance or the fact that its existence nullifies these silly primitive 'fashion statements' from backward cultures.

Many apols, Aunty: must admit unusually for me I skim read the thread only having just returned from France and trying to catch up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

I think there are two options with Burkha.

Option 1) Women are required to wear a burkha.

In this case I support the immediate banning as it is illiberal and illegal, it infringes on the rights of women.

Option 2) Women choose to wear the burkha.

In this case I do not support banning the burkha as it infringes on the right of a person to dress as they please.

However if option 2 is the case then any organisation, building, supermarket, company etc should have the right to ban the wearing of facial coverings by their employees, or customers or on their premises etc as the wearing of a burkha is optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
I think there are two options with Burkha.

Option 1) Women are required to wear a burkha.

In this case I support the immediate banning as it is illiberal and illegal, it infringes on the rights of women.

Option 2) Women choose to wear the burkha.

In this case I do not support banning the burkha as it infringes on the right of a person to dress as they please.

The problem here is that you can't guarantee that she really has chosen to wear it, so by allowing religious head dresses in cases when there is a culture of forcing women to wear it as a political/religious/supremacy statement, you in essence are aiding and abetting the people who want to oppress women into wearing head coverings that visible set them apart from the community in general. It's an incredibly effective form of patriarchal control, even if western feminists swear that it is 'liberating'.

Remember, some people will kill their own daughters over this issue, more than one young girl died gruesomely for nothing more than her refusal to cover in the West, so a blanket ban would save lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422
Well, I'm essentially a liberal and I agree with your post. Ban the Burkha!

Really? While the first point has merit the rest are at best dubious.

A magistrate's job is to judge on the evidence, not the expression on the accused's face. Any magistrate that needs to see the face to reach a decision is clearly not competent to do the job. Their judgements will inevitably be biased in favour of people who can play a good game of poker and against those of a nervous disposition.

I'd agree "distracting for driving" is an excuse to ban clothing - IF the general population all has perfect eyesight and hearing, never; phones, eats, listens to the radio, talks or is talked to by their passengers, or carries children in the car. Accepting all those other distractions are OK rather loses any credibility when using "distraction" to support a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

I posted a new thread on the boards a couple of weeks ago. stating that posters were becoming caricatures of themselves and that we would soon be running out of reactionary daily mail headlines if we weren't careful. I suggested that posters could try using this...

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

This generates daily mail esque headlines for the hard of thinking.

Funny thing was, the moderators deleted the thread ! They will let people post this drivel all day long, but try suggesting that people are posting drivel and it gets deleted.

I wonder whether this site, the posters or the moderators have a shred of credibility left anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
Really? While the first point has merit the rest are at best dubious.

A magistrate's job is to judge on the evidence, not the expression on the accused's face. Any magistrate that needs to see the face to reach a decision is clearly not competent to do the job. Their judgements will inevitably be biased in favour of people who can play a good game of poker and against those of a nervous disposition.

Nonsense!

A magistrate is a JP is a lay person and the core concept is that they are drawn from the community they serve and expected to enjoy considerable life experience.

Thus part of their supposed value is the judgement of people.

I fear you are confusing the Crown Court and the Central Criminal Courts with local magistrate's courts.

And ignoring the fact that in the majority of cases in these unless the defendant has pleaded guilty, it's the jury which judges guilt or innocence: unless it is certain appeal courts where the cases is decided by a triumvate of judges sitting alone.

If a JP is disconnected from the defendant's body language then they are liable to err on the side of caution and exact greater more onerous sanctions.

I'd agree "distracting for driving" is an excuse to ban clothing - IF the general population all has perfect eyesight and hearing, never; phones, eats, listens to the radio, talks or is talked to by their passengers, or carries children in the car. Accepting all those other distractions are OK rather loses any credibility when using "distraction" to support a case.

Read again what I wrote.

Start with peripheral vision.

Your inane comment would suggest that Burqa wearers don't also do these other things too.

Which they of course do: and thus doubles the compromised dynamic................................

BTW: Eating or drinking whilst driving is an endorsable moving traffic offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
I posted a new thread on the boards a couple of weeks ago. stating that posters were becoming caricatures of themselves and that we would soon be running out of reactionary daily mail headlines if we weren't careful. I suggested that posters could try using this...

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

This generates daily mail esque headlines for the hard of thinking.

Funny thing was, the moderators deleted the thread ! They will let people post this drivel all day long, but try suggesting that people are posting drivel and it gets deleted.

I wonder whether this site, the posters or the moderators have a shred of credibility left anymore.

The inescapable corollary to your post is that you are obviously rather familiar with the Daily Mail.

I for one am not since I don't read it: nor do I cite it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information