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

Scroll to see replies

By arguing that they should be banned and then comparing it to wearing clothing with Racist and homophobic slogans on.

Banning clothing is about as illeberal as it gets.
Then you compared allowing people to wear a Burqa to legalising murder which was quite something, even for you.

You obviously have some difficulty understanding plain English. I didn't compare people wearing a burkha to people being murdered. I was rather pointing out a flaw in your logic by drawing attention to the results of following your logic in not making crimes that have victims illegal.

My point about slogans was a direct response to a poster who said no clothing should ever be banned. I gave him some examples that might change his mind (and he did).

As I have already said, I have not advocated making the full veil illegal.

Reply 101

username878267

Original post by Good bloke

Your point was illogical. Entirely.
In the case of murder, it would always be the one who committed the killing that would be punished.

If you class wearing the Burqa as wrong but also argue that women are being forced to wear it, then by making it illegal you would be punishing the victim....

Quite how you've tried to compare it in any way to legalising murder defies belief and basic logic.

My point about slogans was a direct response to a poster who said no clothing should ever be banned. I gave him some examples that might change his mind (and he did).

As I have already said, I have not advocated making the full veil illegal.

No clothing should ever be banned... including all your examples.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 102

Damien96

Original post by Good bloke

The swastika, in its unrotated form, is neither a symbol of anti-semitism nor of hatred, but of good luck. You will find it in temples in Korea and India, commonly on Buddhist, Jainist, American Indian and Hindu artifacts, in British banks, on the outside of the India High Commission's building in Aldwych, London and plenty of other public buildings in Britain, including municipal buildings, None of these sympathisse with the nazis or their doctrines.

Carlsberg used it as their logo and there is still one to be found on its Danish HQ.

The Theosophical Society uses it on its seal, and even the British druids used it.

I know, this is brought up everytime the swastika is mentioned. What has that to do with this discussion?

Reply 103

Damien96

Original post by niteninja1

The recently 2016 placed a bag with wires on a random tube train to see if it was detected/reported and it wasn't

OK then. That really furthered the discourse. Thanks.

Reply 104

Damien96

Original post by Trinculo

False acc. The bans in Malaysia and Tunisia were for civil servants only (teachers mostly). Essentially people directly employed by government, and didn't apply to private citizens, although in Tunisia they tried to pass niqab as being a security risk and said they would stop and check people wearing them more. Don't know if that ever actually happened.

It's worth pointing out that Tunisia used to have a rabidly secular leadership. The same dude who banned hair coverings for women years ago, also banned beards.

It did happen and is well documented. The original ban was in 1981 but has been extended in recent years, with varying degrees of success.

Malaysia has a modesty police, yet still has enforced some form of control over face coverings, although you are right regarding private citizens. The larger point still stands, if Islamic countries can ban, either outright or within certain institutions, then it is not Islamophobic to do the same here.

I admit there is much to discuss and plenty of grey area, but we can't have that discussion until the **** flingers move out of the way.

Reply 105

username878267

Original post by Damien96

It's not that banning it would be Islamaphobic, it's that banning it would be illiberal.

I don't like it, but an arbitrary ban won't solve the problem. I want people not to wear it because they don't want to, not because it's illegal.

As it stands though, they do want to wear it and that should be their choice.

Reply 106

Damien96

Original post by Bornblue

You may not be calling it Islamophobic or, as I often here, an act of imperialism, but many do.

I disagree with your conclusion but I can't say entirely. It's something I've been on both sides of and never quite at ease either way.

I do loathe the normalising of it though, that is unacceptable to me.

Reply 107

username878267

Original post by Damien96

I used to be in favour of banning it but i'm not anymore.

I don't like it and don't think it should be normalised but I feel that it's the wrong way to deal with it. It simply papers over the cracks. It won't stop women who are being forced to wear it - they'd still be forced to in the house. It will also punish women who want to wear it.

If a woman wants to wear it, who am I to tell her she can't? I want her to make that decision herself. I want her to become educated and realise the absurdity of it.

I think it's a slippery slope when the government starts telling us what we can and cannot wear.

Integration cannot be achieved by banning things. It can only be achieved by showing them that our more liberal way is better than covering yourself up to extreme levels.