Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    That's why I believe in representative democracy, a codified constitution and human rights enshrined in law rather than the kangaroo court of "direct democracy". People feeling "uneasy" about something is not an excuse to deny other people their freedoms. I don't give a damn, to be frank, if a bunch of white people feel uneasy around Muslim women, or black people, or if a load of straights feel uneasy about people being openly queer. That's no reason to implement discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality, deny black people equality or stop people expressing their beliefs. In fact, that sounds a lot like the kind of fundamentlism you're apparently so afraid of.
    Would you be interested in a project of developing a written constitution?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Fair point, but the burqa is a face covering that makes it a lot more difficult for criminals to be identified after they have committed a crime, so it may encourage them to perform more violent acts if they know that it is unlikely police know who they are. The purpose of this bill is for security, and to make ensure that people do not use face coverings like balaclavas and burqas to increase their chance of getting away with a crime.
    You make a good point, I reconsider my views on this bill.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by McRite)
    You make a good point, I reconsider my views on this bill.
    WOW!

    Well, you've just disproven my hypothesis from the other thread, I guess.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Would you be interested in a project of developing a written constitution?
    It's something that's been tried a few times here without much luck - it's something I might be more inclinded to bring up in Government simply to ensure it's agreeable to the large block of MPs we have, but I'd be happy to work on it with and bring in the ideas of others too You might also want to get in touch with the SoS for Constitution Reform etc once confirmed if it's of interest to you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    In any case this bill is flawed. What if Muslims began wearing burqas for 'entertainment purposes'? There's no way one could prove otherwise.
    rofl. I can't even....:laugh:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Just because something was originally made for something doesn't mean it is still the case; the swastika was originally a peace symbol, do you now condone it's use as a Nazi symbol because originally it was a good thing?

    P.s. here I am going to assume you do not condone naziism

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Something like the face veil, which is still legally enforced in some countries as a symbol of misogyny, does not change its stripes overnight. Its overwhelming use across the world is for husbands to hide their wives away from other men. A handful of women in the West who claim it is 'empowering' do not change that fact.

    Would you suggest the golliwog has changed its meaning because a few shopkeepers claim it is merely a collector's toy, and that they are not personally racist?

    Question: if it's just about feeling modest, why wear the burka specifically? Why hasn't some other form of dress emerged that serves the same purpose but is not of that specific design?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    These women are not helped by the outlaw of the burqa, their help lies through other means.
    Then neither are nudists.

    As long as one's clothing do not infringe the liberties of others then yes, they should be able to wear what they like.
    So you are happy for anyone to wear (or not wear) anything? Nudists?

    Someone covering their face through their own volition has no infringements on the liberties of others, they should be free to wear it if that's their choice.
    Neither does a nudist, but for matters of public decency we prohibit them from walking down the street in that state.

    It's also naive to suggest that we only ban things where they infringe upon individual liberty. We ban plenty of things that act as a security threat, damage the public interest, outrage public decency, etc.

    Historically yes, it was a symbol of oppression, however like the N-word, it's taken the opposite effect for many. There are some against the n-word and there are some against the burqa, but neither infringe on anybody's liberties and it should be their liberty to say, do, wear what they like.
    Human rights are qualified; we have never had the right to say or do as we please in Europe. My view is that the problems of the burqa (security, propagating a misogynist symbol, social interaction, sowing division on religious lines) outweigh any spurious notion that you should be free to wear absolutely what you want.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes, I belive that that is the main reason women wear it today at least, and I think that if a woman wants to wear a hijab or burqua because they don't want to be objectified by men then that is fine by me.
    The overwhelming use of the burqa in the world today is for husbands to stop other men looking at their wives and for women to be cloaked away from men generally, and this is enforced in many countries. You are suggesting that because a few women in the West claim it's to let a man get to know her personally (or something like that), that's now the main reason for wearing the burqa, despite world-wide, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Also it should be noted that there is a male head scarf in Islam.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh
    That's not a face veil though is it?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    The overwhelming use of the burqa in the world today is for husbands to stop other men looking at their wives and for women to be cloaked away from men generally, and this is enforced in many countries. You are suggesting that because a few women in the West claim it's to let a man get to know her personally (or something like that), that's now the main reason for wearing the burqa, despite world-wide, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



    That's not a face veil though is it?
    Citation please. And I think that (at least in the western world) that is the main reason, and thsi is about the west.

    Nor is the hijab. I think that there is a male version of the burqua but it depends on the type of Islam you are dealing with.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Could I wear somebody else's face full-time?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Citation please. And I think that (at least in the western world) that is the main reason, and thsi is about the west.
    And your citation for it being the main reason in the Western world?

    Nor is the hijab. I think that there is a male version of the burqua but it depends on the type of Islam you are dealing with.
    Well there either is or there isn't. The fact that men do not feel obliged to wear a face veil to adhere to any obligations of modesty, whereas women do, reinforces the face veil's status as a sexist symbol.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    And your citation for it being the main reason in the Western world?



    Well there either is or there isn't. The fact that men do not feel obliged to wear a face veil to adhere to any obligations of modesty, whereas women do, reinforces the face veil's status as a sexist symbol.
    I asked you first.

    All religion is male dominated. But I don't belive it is a sexist symbol. There is no evidence for that and in teh UK Muslim women don't need to wear the hijab or the burqua if they don't want to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I asked you first.
    The legal systems and social customs of numerous Muslim countries across the world, where wearing the burqa is not intended to be a symbol of female empowerment but enforced, socially and legally, as per its original purpose.

    Your citation?

    All religion is male dominated. But I don't belive it is a sexist symbol. There is no evidence for that and in teh UK Muslim women don't need to wear the hijab or the burqua if they don't want to.
    And how many women feel forced or are under pressure to wear the burqa? Not all do so by choice in the West.

    There is every evidence for it being a sexist symbol - that is what it was originally intended as, that is what it is practised as across the world and there is no male equivalent of the face veil that men actively wear on a par with women. The onus is therefore on you to show evidence as to how it is not a sexist symbol.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    The legal systems and social customs of numerous Muslim countries across the world, where wearing the burqa is not intended to be a symbol of female empowerment but enforced, socially and legally, as per its original purpose.

    Your citation?



    And how many women feel forced or are under pressure to wear the burqa? Not all do so by choice in the West.

    There is every evidence for it being a sexist symbol - that is what it was originally intended as, that is what it is practised as across the world and there is no male equivalent of the face veil that men actively wear on a par with women. The onus is therefore on you to show evidence as to how it is not a sexist symbol.
    one of many such quotes from numerous sites. Unless you want to go around and telling Muslim women that they are delusioneing themselves I belive we shoudl take their reasoning at face value.

    And you are clinging onto 'it was originally' as has been said the swastika was originally a symbol of peace, things change their meaning.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    one of many such quotes from numerous sites. Unless you want to go around and telling Muslim women that they are delusioneing themselves I belive we shoudl take their reasoning at face value.
    Anecdotal evidence.

    And you are clinging onto 'it was originally' as has been said the swastika was originally a symbol of peace, things change their meaning.
    Does a golliwog lose its symbolic meaning if a shopkeeper claims it is merely a collector's item and that they display it in a way that is not intended to be racist?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Anecdotal evidence.



    Does a golliwog lose its symbolic meaning if a shopkeeper claims it is merely a collector's item and that they display it in a way that is not intended to be racist?
    People opinions can only be anecdotal...

    So your argument is that once something has been used for bad it cannot ever be good?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    People opinions can only be anecdotal...

    So your argument is that once something has been used for bad it cannot ever be good?
    My argument is that if something's history, symbolism and overwhelming current practice suggests it is x, then it is x until someone provides tangible evidence to the contrary.

    Does a golliwog lose its racist meaning if a few shopkeepers display it and claim they have no racist intent?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    My argument is that if something's history, symbolism and overwhelming current practice suggests it is x, then it is x until someone provides tangible evidence to the contrary.

    Does a golliwog lose its racist meaning if a few shopkeepers display it and claim they have no racist intent?
    But with a persons veiws that would mean according to you no one should ever change their veiws.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read this argument, but having seen Aph argue and having argued with Lady Comstock, my guess is that I would agree with Aph but Lady Comstock's arguments are more logical and better-presented.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But with a persons veiws that would mean according to you no one should ever change their veiws.
    If that's the case then why don't most of us view golliwogs as non-racist when a few shopkeepers' views are that it is not racist to sell them in a shop window? Most of us view them as racist and offensive to display, no matter what the views of the person displaying them. That's because their symbolism is so entrenched and pervasive.

    I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, as we both obviously consider this in very different ways.

    I would ask though: does it not bother you that Muslim men do not feel obliged to wear a face veil as Muslim women do? Is it not sexist in itself that the face veil is exclusively worn by women? If it's not a sexist symbol, why don't men wear it?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 21, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.