Why I, as a Muslim, am launching a campaign to ban the burka in Britain
Scroll to see replies
OP - how come you want to ban the Burka, which is after all a 'traditional man's coat made from felt or karaku'? Therefore we should all be arguing about coats and not a garment traditionally worn by Islamic women (which is in fact a Burqa) 
P.S I'm being a bit pedantic and petty - but then again, so are you...
P.S I'm being a bit pedantic and petty - but then again, so are you...
Original post by Lady Comstock
Way to selectively copy and paste under the "naturism" heading of the CPS guidance. As I already stated, naturism, i.e. going naked in designated areas, would satisfy one of the defences under the POA 1986. It is a narrow exception.
Ok. I copied and pasted it. Was I pretending it was my own work?
Anyway. Naturism is not going "naked in designated areas"
Let's copy and paste "selectively" again:
" Whilst many naturists will restrict their activities to specially designated areas and/or places where there is a tradition of naked activity, such as nudist beaches, others may wish to enjoy nudity more widely. "
I am not even talking about what you wish to do when you are publicly naked. That is just you.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Going naked in public, and general public nudity bar some narrow exceptions, will be caught under s.5. The CPS even say that in the document you copied and pasted from: "
Going naked in public, and general public nudity bar some narrow exceptions, will be caught under s.5. The CPS even say that in the document you copied and pasted from: "
That is interesting.....Sorry..Which part of this says that Public Nudity is illegal? Oh wait....
Original post by Lady Comstock
Regardless, CPS guidance does not provide for what is or is not illegal, it is about what the CPS are prepared to bring to the criminal courts. Bearing in mind your previous posts have little regard for pragmatism, i.e. if "public nudity" is not explicitly referred to in a provision it not illegal, then I find it odd that you should quote from CPS guidance.
Regardless, CPS guidance does not provide for what is or is not illegal, it is about what the CPS are prepared to bring to the criminal courts. Bearing in mind your previous posts have little regard for pragmatism, i.e. if "public nudity" is not explicitly referred to in a provision it not illegal, then I find it odd that you should quote from CPS guidance.
Well, yes... that is why it is called CPS Guidance.
Maybe you find it odd because the CPS do not agree with what you say.
As I have stated Public Nudity, it is not illegal. Unfortunately, sometimes, the law is not pragmatic. I am just repeating the fact even if people want to pretend otherwise.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Safiya122
How are you a Muslim if your username has the name atheist in it? Which btw you spelt wrong..
Also if a woman wants to wear a burkha then she should be allowed to.
Also if a woman wants to wear a burkha then she should be allowed to.
I'm not a Muslim yes it is spelt wrong as someone already had the correct spelling
Yes she should but she should also be willing to accept the consequences of wearing such an item (limiting her interaction with society at large)
Original post by XavierMyshkin
Do you not think it's a tad hypocritical that individuals accusing others of forcing the burka on women then do the exact same and force the contrary?
No.
Original post by Radicalathiest
No.
Could you explain why you have a dualist view over it... asking in all seriousness.
Original post by XavierMyshkin
Could you explain why you have a dualist view over it... asking in all seriousness.
We as a society sometimes ban things that are offensive and have a capability to cause issues with our society and I do see this as being one of them. Now for me the issue isn't that someone want to cover it's the demands that are made to make this covering acceptable and part of the norm (For example I would like to remove state support for people who cover as they quite clearly aren't capable of partaking in every day society and as a result the state has not reason to continue supporting or financing such attitudes)
Some seem to think that be case we are tolerant we are tolerant of everything when this clearly isn't the case (burn a quran outside a mosque and see what happens)
Original post by Radicalathiest
We as a society sometimes ban things that are offensive and have a capability to cause issues with our society and I do see this as being one of them. Now for me the issue isn't that someone want to cover it's the demands that are made to make this covering acceptable and part of the norm (For example I would like to remove state support for people who cover as they quite clearly aren't capable of partaking in every day society and as a result the state has not reason to continue supporting or financing such attitudes)
Some seem to think that be case we are tolerant we are tolerant of everything when this clearly isn't the case (burn a quran outside a mosque and see what happens)
Some seem to think that be case we are tolerant we are tolerant of everything when this clearly isn't the case (burn a quran outside a mosque and see what happens)
What are the issues caused by the burka? I do not see why they would be incapable of partaking in society- try to be specific. Also I am not sure we can homogenise society, to use your example burning the Qura'an wouldn't prompt most people to react it would probably get the support of many. Some Muslims will react violently and others will react more proactively, others may not react at all. The important point is that I don't feel you've made an objective case for the banning of the burka, and so when we sort of come to make a decision regarding whether it should be banned or not we have to look at the actual harms or benefits rather than the perceived harms or benefits i.e. we shouldn't have a prior assumption.
Original post by XavierMyshkin
What are the issues caused by the burka? I do not see why they would be incapable of partaking in society- try to be specific. Also I am not sure we can homogenise society, to use your example burning the Qura'an wouldn't prompt most people to react it would probably get the support of many. Some Muslims will react violently and others will react more proactively, others may not react at all. The important point is that I don't feel you've made an objective case for the banning of the burka, and so when we sort of come to make a decision regarding whether it should be banned or not we have to look at the actual harms or benefits rather than the perceived harms or benefits i.e. we shouldn't have a prior assumption.
There are many, the inability to partake in normal interaction with the majority of society would be the main one I have problems with.
No I'm saing the law would intervine and you would be punished by the law, here is a action that we see limited because society knows it's wrong to do such things in such a place. So sod all to do with how muslims would react it's how the state would react to prevent this action for the greater good.
Also I'm not making the case for the banning it is a Muslim who is making the case and I support his case for the banning
But as I said for me I don't care what peple wear what I care about is the demands that are made when they are wearing such garb with the main being the attempt at getting this normalised within society when it simply isn't nor should it ever be considered as much.
But can I just clarify you believe people should be free to dress as they please with no restrictions
Original post by Radicalathiest
There are many, the inability to partake in normal interaction with the majority of society would be the main one I have problems with.
No I'm saing the law would intervine and you would be punished by the law, here is a action that we see limited because society knows it's wrong to do such things in such a place. So sod all to do with how muslims would react it's how the state would react to prevent this action for the greater good.
Also I'm not making the case for the banning it is a Muslim who is making the case and I support his case for the banning
But as I said for me I don't care what peple wear what I care about is the demands that are made when they are wearing such garb with the main being the attempt at getting this normalised within society when it simply isn't nor should it ever be considered as much.
But can I just clarify you believe people should be free to dress as they please with no restrictions
No I'm saing the law would intervine and you would be punished by the law, here is a action that we see limited because society knows it's wrong to do such things in such a place. So sod all to do with how muslims would react it's how the state would react to prevent this action for the greater good.
Also I'm not making the case for the banning it is a Muslim who is making the case and I support his case for the banning
But as I said for me I don't care what peple wear what I care about is the demands that are made when they are wearing such garb with the main being the attempt at getting this normalised within society when it simply isn't nor should it ever be considered as much.
But can I just clarify you believe people should be free to dress as they please with no restrictions
Hmm the very fact you feel the need to ask this question shows the basic social perception of Muslims. I have no problem with women choosing not to wear a hijab or a burka, in fact in my first post I stated that my position of the burka was uncertain. Most people do not believe people should be free to dress as they please, you have decency laws, but in general terms I have no problem with people excising their own free-will and going out in for example a mini-skirt or for guys shorts etc... nor do most Muslims (I come from the Arab world). In fact if I had children in the future and a daughter I wouldn't at all force her to wear either of the two garments, I would have no right to. Nor do I believe I would have such a right of anyone to whom I was married. To make my position explicit.
The reason burning would be punished by law is that it is a hate crime, just as it would be if I publicly burned a Jamaican flag or Brazilian etc... in the same breathe of course I denounce those that burn Israeli or American flags despite perceive terrorism on their part (let us not descend to politics), the point is your words had been specific to social tolerance rather than political- the two are very different. To focus on the issue of the burka as a social impediment, I would venture it is a huge one simply because of the stigma we associate with it, of course I completely understand the arguments in schools to promote proper interactions or in the workplace. For security checks it should be taken off. But in general public, for example in the street I do not see why women if they so choose (and even men) if they so choose (though obviously this would be independent of a religious issue) as a personal choice and one done to protect their own interests I see no reason why I should impose my uncertainty or in your case complete antagonism upon such individuals. In such cases there is no particular social restriction.
Original post by XavierMyshkin
or in your case complete antagonism upon such individuals. In such cases there is no particular social restriction.
Again you miss the relevant point
this is not my case this is a muslims case on why it should be banned
Original post by Radicalathiest
Again you miss the relevant point
this is not my case this is a muslims case on why it should be banned
this is not my case this is a muslims case on why it should be banned
You agreed with it and have stated that you think it should be banned, unless you are trying to suggest you were neutrally promoting the article... What an irony that would be
Original post by XavierMyshkin
You agreed with it and have stated that you think it should be banned, unless you are trying to suggest you were neutrally promoting the article... What an irony that would be
I agreed with the arguments that he put forward, yes this is correct.
I have stated my way of dealing with this would not require a ban but I can't dissagree with this Muslims arguments about why he wants it banned.
Does someone wearing a veil cause you actual bodily harm. No.
Are you offended by it? Yes - apparently.
Can you recognise people who are not wearing a veil on CTV - yes sometimes / no sometimes - the pics are not clear- they have changed their appearance. ( I would if I was going to commit a crime).
Do people wearing a veil have a higher incidence of committing crime in comparison to people not wearing a veil - no
So, on practical grounds it's not going to make much difference on the crime stats is it?
The fact that many people wouldn't want to wear one themselves or are offended that other people do wear one is irrelevant.
We all have the right to offend other people and no doubt do on a daily basis. We don't have the right to racially abuse them or to incite racial hatred.
In a limited number of cases where it is genuinely important to check someone's true identity rules are there to ask for a veil to be removed as we would also ask for people to give a DNA sample, offer identification documents etc.
Are you offended by it? Yes - apparently.
Can you recognise people who are not wearing a veil on CTV - yes sometimes / no sometimes - the pics are not clear- they have changed their appearance. ( I would if I was going to commit a crime).
Do people wearing a veil have a higher incidence of committing crime in comparison to people not wearing a veil - no
So, on practical grounds it's not going to make much difference on the crime stats is it?
The fact that many people wouldn't want to wear one themselves or are offended that other people do wear one is irrelevant.
We all have the right to offend other people and no doubt do on a daily basis. We don't have the right to racially abuse them or to incite racial hatred.
In a limited number of cases where it is genuinely important to check someone's true identity rules are there to ask for a veil to be removed as we would also ask for people to give a DNA sample, offer identification documents etc.
Original post by Lady Comstock
The notion that every act which is a criminal offence has to be explicitly referred to in legislation and/or common law to be "illegal" is farcical.
Public nudity is about as legal as shooting someone in the head, insofar as they are not referred to expressly in legal provisions but the former is a public order offence and the latter comes under murder. Again, both have exceptions which make them valid in certain circumstances, but I doubt you would say that shooting someone in the head is not illegal? This is what your argument boils down to: that something not being expressly contained within a legal provision and being subject to some narrow exceptions means that it cannot be described as "illegal".
Again, why don't you put your theory that public nudity is not illegal to the test and walk around your local town, naked, for a few hours. Or do you not want to again? Probably because you will spend the night in a cell?
Public nudity is about as legal as shooting someone in the head, insofar as they are not referred to expressly in legal provisions but the former is a public order offence and the latter comes under murder. Again, both have exceptions which make them valid in certain circumstances, but I doubt you would say that shooting someone in the head is not illegal? This is what your argument boils down to: that something not being expressly contained within a legal provision and being subject to some narrow exceptions means that it cannot be described as "illegal".
Again, why don't you put your theory that public nudity is not illegal to the test and walk around your local town, naked, for a few hours. Or do you not want to again? Probably because you will spend the night in a cell?
Yawn. Did I say it had to be explicitly referred to? Please quote where I said that.
The entire issue is that you have to make positions that I do not have.
The issue is quite simple. People state that Public Nudity is illegal. It is legal. That is why many people enjoy naked rambling, nude beaches, skinny dipping and etc.
Now, if you want to write exceptions this and that. That is great. That doesn't change the fact it is legal.
I should also point out that there are laws that specifically mention the discharge of firearm....so not a great comparison.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Radicalathiest
I'm not a Muslim yes it is spelt wrong as someone already had the correct spelling
Yes she should but she should also be willing to accept the consequences of wearing such an item (limiting her interaction with society at large)
Yes she should but she should also be willing to accept the consequences of wearing such an item (limiting her interaction with society at large)
erm have you read the title? "Why I, as a Muslim..."
her interactions with the society shouldn't be limited because of that. Why should people face discrimination because of that? It's funny because if this was about homosexuality, people would be going mad..so basically it's society that needs to change..not trying to create some stupid law that prevents women from being able to show their identity in a way they want to.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Not particularly.
If I say to you: "public nudism is illegal", what will you come back with? That nudist beaches and skinny dipping are legal? Then I will refer you to the fact that many illegal acts have exceptions.
I do concede the fact that very rarely is anything totally illegal, even murder is allowed under certain circumstances. But I think it is just a pointless game of semantics to draw a distinction between "illegal" and "generally illegal". If nothing is totally illegal, then every act which has traditionally been an offence is "generally illegal".
If I say to you: "public nudism is illegal", what will you come back with? That nudist beaches and skinny dipping are legal? Then I will refer you to the fact that many illegal acts have exceptions.
I do concede the fact that very rarely is anything totally illegal, even murder is allowed under certain circumstances. But I think it is just a pointless game of semantics to draw a distinction between "illegal" and "generally illegal". If nothing is totally illegal, then every act which has traditionally been an offence is "generally illegal".
Nope. I will come back with there is nothing written in the law that states that Public Nudism is illegal.
That is why there is no exception for skinny dipping, naked sun tanning on the beach, rambling, art and etc. They are considered legal till they meet certain criteria and etc.
Unlike, let's say....the discharge of a weapon.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Again, most would agree that assaulting someone is illegal. You would be hard pressed to find a lawyer, or indeed a layman, who would describe it as "legal". Yet, there are numerous assaults which are completely legal: boxing, police, performances, etc. I am still struggling to see why you are making an exception for public nudism.
Ok. Because Public Nudity is not illegal in the first place. Making the comparison irrelevant.
Original post by nimrodstower
Oh so you don't believe in defence, are you the type to judge them, before they have been found guilty? Is that why you think Muslim women who wear the veil could have criminal intent?
I don't think anyone is stating that all Muslim women who wear the burka have criminal intent however it is entirely possible that some do. It's also possible that it's not even a woman, just as it's possible it might not be a Muslim. That is one of the reasons I'm against the burka, because we just don't know who is under there.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Safiya122
erm have you read the title? "Why I, as a Muslim..."
her interactions with the society shouldn't be limited because of that. Why should people face discrimination because of that? It's funny because if this was about homosexuality, people would be going mad..so basically it's society that needs to change..not trying to create some stupid law that prevents women from being able to show their identity in a way they want to.
her interactions with the society shouldn't be limited because of that. Why should people face discrimination because of that? It's funny because if this was about homosexuality, people would be going mad..so basically it's society that needs to change..not trying to create some stupid law that prevents women from being able to show their identity in a way they want to.
erm yes it is the title of the article the OP is about
I can tell form this you actually haven't read the article and the arguments it contains
But no out society is fine thanks no one want to stop them doing what they want but they want other to act in a way that they wouldn't normally
As I said it the 'demands' that are made that cause the issues here and the demands for unequal treatment
Hardly news, there has been Muslim backed/founded campaigns to ban the Burqah for decades.
Original post by miscounted_time
I don't think anyone is stating that all Muslim women who wear the burka have criminal intent however it is entirely possible that some do. It's also possible that it's not even a woman, just as it's possible it might not be a Muslim. That is one of the reasons I'm against the burka, because we just don't know who is under there.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Police have sufficient powers to deal with issues like this, why, would anyone want to give them more? What about transvestites, are they now going to persecuted under law (again), rotten laws like this always lead to more societal problems, not less. Then you have Guy Fawkes, Batman, Spiderman and other masks, are we going to have our kids prosecuted as well, after all they are just as capable of having criminal intent.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- Do you think £9,984.00 per year apprecentship is worth it?
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- who is donald trump
- Muslim marriage divorce
- My experience with the Students' Union
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- Is it too late to apply for degree apprenticeships
- Why is religion difficult?!
- ✨Lexi's Daily Life Blog ✨❤️😈
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- 2023 King's Speech
- Setting up a not-for-profit organisation (just me)
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Google ads campaign
- Is Liverpool Muslim friendly?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- How can I have sex with a guy WHEN I'M FAT
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
