Burkini ban deemed 'illegal', ban suspended

It was incredibly relevant. It was a question of human rights and freedoms against a majority sentiment. I scaled up the issue to murder so you would see the problem with your view. The freedom to wear what you like is not as important as the right to life but neither is the freedom from slavery. Does that mean slavery should be allowed if the majority of people supported it? No, of course not. So why should we allow the double standard for the freedom to dress as you like?

I know people argue against leaving the EU but as I said, leaving the EU does not conflict with civil liberties.

If you are still confused, I'll simplify the question:

Do you support going against human rights/freedoms if there is a majority backing?

Might as well ban hoodies, buffs, masks and any other item of clothing that obscures a person's features then.


I don't like Bible-bashers either but wearing a burqa isn't telling me to convert to Islam. We also can't ban anything we don't like or that offends us. I know, shocking that not all liberals are triggered SJWs (this comment isn't directed at you in particular btw).

Hoodies and masks are different because you can ask someone to remove them whereas if you ask someone to remove their religious clothing, you're immediately branded racist for trying to do something which is common sense.
Besides, in a some areas, hoodies, masks etc... Are banned for security risks but you can't do this on a piece of clothing because it's "religious".

I know someone who's mother wears the thing which covers a woman's hair but not face and his sister chooses to not wear anything on her face at all. So you can't say it's religious when she is herself but chooses not to wear it.


Posted from TSR Mobile

My view is not as significant as murder, you're escalating your view point to make others believe your right. In this, no harm is coming to Muslims by not letting them wear a Burkini, whereas you are likening this to slavery and murdur which is ridiculous. I likened it to a nonsensical political matter because overall the change has no major affect on people. You don't need to simplify the question because it has no stance in the argument held.

There's no reason to remove the clothing in the first place though.. especially when wetsuits are equally capable of concealing weapons, lmfao

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479

Thank **** the French high administrative court is stopping this, it was not only ridiculous, ineffective, discriminatory - but also technically illegal.

Hoodies and masks are different because you can ask someone to remove them whereas if you ask someone to remove their religious clothing, you're immediately branded racist for trying to do something which is common sense.
Besides, in a some areas, hoodies, masks etc... Are banned for security risks but you can't do this on a piece of clothing because it's "religious".

I know someone who's mother wears the thing which covers a woman's hair but not face and his sister chooses to not wear anything on her face at all. So you can't say it's religious when she is herself but chooses not to wear it.

If you are asking a person to take off their hoodie or mask, they are probably in the process of being detained, or at least stopped and searched. Are you telling me that no burqa-wearing woman has ever been stopped/arrested by the police? I am sure that there has been multiple situations where a woman has had to take off a burqa for identification. And I am equally sure that when an authority makes such a request, they aren't instantly accused of racism.

I've seen a person on a bus get asked to show their oyster (you know when a ticket inspector gets on a bus and asks to see Oyster cards) and said because I can't ask you to remove it, I have to see another form of identification.
What stops someone just taking someone's Oyster card and their provisional license and saying their someone else?

I'm sure if someone said they wouldn't take it off, the police would have a hard time identifying the person if they needed to be.

You are deliberately avoiding the question because you don't want to admit to hypocrisy.

Either you accept that you hold a double standard when it comes to civil liberties (some freedoms are less important than national law) or you support repealing the ban.

I acknowledged that wearing the burkini is less important than most freedoms but it is a freedom nonetheless. If you support the ban then you should have no problem with dictating what people are allowed to wear in general. You should support the government telling people that they can't wear dresses, that they can't wear white trainers and that hats of any kind are banned. No harm is coming to anyone here either.

So I ask you again. This time, not in relation to the burkini but imagine this is a fresh thread and this question is given in a vacuum with no other context. Do you support the curtailing of individual rights and freedom due to majority rule?

For society to succeed harmoniously, its better for rules to stand when a large majority has a ruling over others

Its what happens now and it works.

Now back to your point of murder and slavery because no, I am not trying to avoid your question, I am stating that a matter of clothing has no relevance to the death and meaningless punishment of innocent people.

A majority vote would never be needed on a subject of life or death because that would be made by political professionals.

So yes to an extend I do and to an extend I believe you're being very narrow minded to put it on one situation.

They would have been asked to remove it as well. KKK and Nazi uniforms are illegal everywhere in France. Stop using false analogies.

In other words, as long as the majority is happy then society is fine. Despite the minority not getting a say in legislation even if it affects them.


It's not what's happening now. Rules enshrined in the Human Rights Act cannot be transgressed by any other legislation. We aren't talking about government in general.


I already acknowledged that clothing is a relatively minor freedom compared to acts of murder and slavery. However, restricting clothing on a religious basis often goes against freedom of expression and freedom of religion. I see rights as equal, you obviously don't. My point was that even if a right seems less important than another, it does not mean you can ignore it.

The right to marry is less 'important' than the right to life. The freedom of assembly is less 'important' than the freedom from slavery. Does it mean we can cast these aside? No, so why do the same for the freedoms of religion and expression?

Every single law we pass, bar referendums, is done by political professionals. We are a representative democracy.


The point of human rights is to be absolute in the vast majority of circumstances; they are designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority (which you seem unconcerned about). It is not narrow-mindedness but a respect for the very reason rights exist that determines my viewpoint. You don't pick and choose which ones you consider less important and therefore can be overridden by domestic law. By disrespecting one (for no good reason), you might as well disrespect the rest as you have let subjectivity influence them.

Source? The only info I've found is that there is a ban on full face coverings. As long as you keep the hood down you should be fine

The point of the KKK costume is to conceal the face. It's like saying you can wear a burqa as long as you keep the hood down.