Uk Has Less Progressive Laws Than Morocco After It Bans The Burqa

Hold on, you've gone from:

Polls have time and time again shown that Muslim women want to wear it.
(no link to these polls though)

To

If women are being forced to wear it .

Can you please make your mind up.

Basically you're happy to facilitate the abuse and subjugation of some Muslim women by some Muslim men.

Seriously, is an opportunity to signal your virtue worth the price paid by these women?

Islam doesn't tell them to wear a burqa and yes some may be forced but I know some who I've begged not to wear in public because they'll get bigoted idiots like you guys attacking them because you believe they're being forced to wear them. I mean how does that even work? "herp derp those women are being forced to wear the burqa, lemme abuse them to show them my support and let them know we in the west are tolerant unlike Islamic country X".

I personally believe they should be banned in hospitals, airports and high security areas. However, bigots who want to ban a piece of clothing because they feel threatened and blatantly lie that they're worried about those poor muslim women and then go on to abuse them infuriate me.

Does your libertarian stance on clothing extend to the Swastika?

How about a t-shirt with one of these messages?

All gays should be castrated!

Kill the blacks!

Shoot Jeremy Corbyn now!

Deport all Moslems!

Fry a lesbian!

Hitler was right! Gas the Jews!

. but if these women ARE being forced to wear it, then making it illegal punishes the victim...

The tube? Are you referencing 7/7? Help me out here.

Hmm. All murder victims are forced to die. By your convoluted logic our making murder illegal punishes those victims too.

Well, these aren't strictly garments, but messages and symbols on garments. Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

If it were up to me, go ahead and wear an SS uniform with "kill the gays" written on it. Just don't expect to get served anywhere.

If you make wearing the Burqa illegal then you must punish the person who is allegedly being forced to wear it...

Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

Adding to a list that includes Malaysia and Tunisia. Yet here we are, tolerating women in this country are being put in bags. We can pat ourselves on the back all we like for showing tolerance to intolerance, but women in this country are suffering.

Let's be clear, the burqa is not Islamic, let alone cultural to Muslim majority countries. So let's not cowardly hide behind the moral inconsistencies of multi-culturalism and have a truly progressive multi-ethnic society.

http://thesatedire.com/features/islamophobe-of-the-week/islamophobe-of-the-week-morocco/

I was merely illustrating where your odd logic takes you as you don't seem to be thinking it through, perhaps because you are too keen to move on to gratuitous personal insults.

We don't refrain from making the crossing of national borders without proper process and documentation illegal on the grounds it would punish trafficking victims, do we?

If you make wearing the full veil illegal then most potential wearers will comply with the law. Islam, after all, tells Moslems to comply with local laws.

You would also have a mechanism for punishing those that cause the offence to be committed by forcing women to wear them, if there was evidence that families were doing that, and those coerced into breaking the law would have a defence to the charge. Coerced women would not, therefore, be punished for wearing the full veil.

So if you make it illegal how do you decide who to punish?

Let's be radical, shall, we, and let the magistrates and juries decide the individual cases on the basis of the facts of each individual case?

Right so every time someone wears a Burqa we waste huge amounts of taxpayer money to take them to court?

What an absurd idea. Personally I quite like the idea of people being allowed to choose what they wear.

You sound like a SJW in arguing that everyone has a right to not be offended.

Quite why you want a huge, over imposing state dictating to its citizens what it can and can't wear, I don't know.

Are you still maintaining that Jewish people wouldn't be offended if you wore a Swastika?

Well, these aren't strictly garments, but messages and symbols on garments. Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

If it were up to me, go ahead and wear an SS uniform with "kill the gays" written on it. Just don't expect to get served anywhere.

You seem to miss the fact that I haven't actually argued that wearing the full face veil should be illegal. I am, in fact, undecided on the issue. I was acting as devil's advocate and pointing out the benefits and some attributes of such a policy, advocated by others.

I am fairly liberal when it comes to such things but can see a strong public interest in proper integration and a secular state, with no religious symbols allowed at all in public life, which allows people to do as they will in private but to keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

I would personally repeal the laws pertaining to hate speech, though I would keep all incitement to crime, especially violence, illegal. Giving offence should not be criminal, for any reason. Castigating people for wearing Nazi fancy dress or exotic native costume is ridiculous.

I have no doubt that some or even most Jews would be offended if I wore a swastika in a synagogue as they are just as ignorant of what it means as you. I also have little doubt that there are Buddhists, Thais or Sikhs in Britain who regularly wear or carry items with swastikas on them, unnoticed by you. Not the Nazi rotated swastika, though.

There are many Jews who regularly visit public buildings adorned with them without taking offence.

'Playing devil's advocate', ah the usual defence to acting as a pillock.

As for saying Jewish people attend museums with them, well do course because the swastika there is used as a matter of historical fact about the Nazi regime. It is not a declaration of support for the Nazi regime, as it would be if a regular person were to wear it.

You criticise SJW but you are doing exactly the same as them 'this offends me so I think it should be banned'.

Back with the gratuitous personal insults. eh? It always makes the discussion worthwhile, doesn't it?



I never mentioned museums, and wasn't referring to them. Obviously museums commonly hold them in their collections.

I was referring to municipal buildings like council offices and town halls, though there are plenty of banks, for instance, that carry them as part of their decoration (either inside or outside), as well as the Indian High Commission.

Examples are Burlington House (HQ of the Royal Academy of Arts) in London, the Essex County Council HQ, many churches and cathedrals, including a church I know personally in Wiltshire, NatWest Bank in Bolton, the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, Upminster Bridge tube station, even Balmoral Castle's war memorial. The FCO in Whitehall has them too.

None of them are declaring support for the Nazis by openly displaying the symbol, and Jews do not appear to take offence when using them. I suspect they are able to differentiate the use of an ancient good luck charm from a politicized and changed symbol used for a short period, or worn by Nazi sympathisers out to cause a stir.

Occasionally, SJWs complain about them in their ignorance and are quite rightly sent packing with a flea in their ear by the building owners.

What do you think I have said offends me? I can't think of anything.