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

    15
    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.
    I'm sorry, but your argument is just a straw man. I never said I wanted to implement discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality or deny black people equality. I believe that people should be allowed to express their views, but if it is done in a way that threatens security, it should be illegal. Should GCHQ people now be able to blurt out whatever information they receive? I believe that people should be allowed to follow whatever religion they want, as long as it does not contradict the culture or the law of the land, or pose a security threat. Therefore, I believe the public wearing of the burqa and the niqab should be banned. Muslims are free to practice their religion as long as they interpret their religious texts in a way that is compatible with today's Britain, and not in its seventh century form, where there is Sharia law. Furthermore, Muslims are not even required to wear a face covering in public, so all this stuff about Islamophobia is just ridiculous. Since I have never implemented discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality, denied black people equality or stopped people expressing their beliefs in a way that does not oppose British law, culture, and security, I am not part of any kind of fundamentalism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I'm sorry, but your argument is just a straw man. I never said I wanted to implement discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality or deny black people equality. I believe that people should be allowed to express their views, but if it is done in a way that threatens security, it should be illegal. Should GCHQ people now be able to blurt out whatever information they receive? I believe that people should be allowed to follow whatever religion they want, as long as it does not contradict the culture or the law of the land, or pose a security threat. Therefore, I believe the public wearing of the burqa and the niqab should be banned. Muslims are free to practice their religion as long as they interpret their religious texts in a way that is compatible with today's Britain, and not in its seventh century form, where there is Sharia law. Furthermore, Muslims are not even required to wear a face covering in public, so all this stuff about Islamophobia is just ridiculous. Since I have never implemented discriminatory laws to ban homosexuality, denied black people equality or stopped people expressing their beliefs in a way that does not oppose British law, culture, and security, I am not part of any kind of fundamentalism.
    Your argument was that it's the right thing to do because a majority of people support it. I was making the point that the majority aren't always right, as controversial as that may be, and have got things horribly wrong before and used positions of privilege to consolidate their own power and rights at the expense of others. Just as we moved past slavery despite popular support for it, just as we resisted the urge to re-introduce capital punishment despite public opinion at times being in favour of it, we should not start denying some people the rights we all enjoy to dress how we wish and express our cultural or relgious beliefs just because many people wish to do so.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Your argument was that it's the right thing to do because a majority of people support it. I was making the point that the majority aren't always right, as controversial as that may be, and have got things horribly wrong before and used positions of privilege to consolidate their own power and rights at the expense of others. Just as we moved past slavery despite popular support for it, just as we resisted the urge to re-introduce capital punishment despite public opinion at times being in favour of it, we should not start denying some people the rights we all enjoy to dress how we wish and express our cultural or relgious beliefs just because many people wish to do so.
    Hear hear!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Your argument was that it's the right thing to do because a majority of people support it. I was making the point that the majority aren't always right, as controversial as that may be, and have got things horribly wrong before and used positions of privilege to consolidate their own power and rights at the expense of others. Just as we moved past slavery despite popular support for it, just as we resisted the urge to re-introduce capital punishment despite public opinion at times being in favour of it, we should not start denying some people the rights we all enjoy to dress how we wish and express our cultural or relgious beliefs just because many people wish to do so.
    Then what is the point in having democracy if you do not let people make choices because you think they will make the wrong choice? I agree with you that the majority is not always right, but under a democratic system, surely, the view of the majority needs to be represented. If you do not like that, why not advocate for another system, like an autocracy, where the leader can be you, so you get to choose what you think is right and what you think is wrong. Also, even though there is the possibility that the majority may get things wrong, most of the time, they get things right (or somewhere in between, as things are not so black and white), so it is not a terrible system where democracy always gets things wrong. Under your system of selective democracy, we would be like what Myanmar had, where the Burmese military only recognizes an elected government if they like them (i.e. the military allows the USDP to be the government as they agree with them, but not the NLD, who won the 1990 election, and ended up arresting their members).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Then what is the point in having democracy if you do not let people make choices because you think they will make the wrong choice? I agree with you that the majority is not always right, but under a democratic system, surely, the view of the majority needs to be represented. If you do not like that, why not advocate for another system, like an autocracy, where the leader can be you, so you get to choose what you think is right and what you think is wrong. Also, even though there is the possibility that the majority may get things wrong, most of the time, they get things right (or somewhere in between, as things are not so black and white), so it is not a terrible system where democracy always gets things wrong. Under your system of selective democracy, we would be like what Myanmar had, where the Burmese military only recognizes an elected government if they like them (i.e. the military allows the USDP to be the government as they agree with them, but not the NLD, who won the 1990 election, and ended up arresting their members).
    I don't believe in autocracy or military rule. I believe in representative democracy, where people elect politicians who run on platforms that roughly align with their own beliefs, and these politicians then make decisions from a more educated, rational and well-informed perspective than the local guy down the pub with the aid of top-class civil servants.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't believe in autocracy or military rule. I believe in representative democracy, where people elect politicians who run on platforms that roughly align with their own beliefs, and these politicians then make decisions from a more educated, rational and well-informed perspective than the local guy down the pub with the aid of top-class civil servants.
    Sounds like Farage tbh, except not local of course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Remind me, which race covers their faces?
    Bank robbers.

    I like this bill, AYE

    (May I point out that it wouldn't ban Islamic face coverings because they are allowed for in other legislation which this bill states it is not infringing on?)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    Bank robbers.

    I like this bill, AYE

    (May I point out that it wouldn't ban Islamic face coverings because they are allowed for in other legislation which this bill states it is not infringing on?)
    I assume you take this from the following clause:

    "(a) pursuant to any legislative or regulatory provision;"

    I would argue that this does not rule out prosecutions over Islamic face coverings since they are not specifically provided for in any existing provision, merely not actively prohibited. Regardless, should a case by bought forward the court would have to consider the intentions of Parliament when passing the Bill: in this case it would have to be considered that the author has specifically condonded the banning of such veils during the Parliamentary debate on this item and thus it is likely to reach the conclusion that the bill renders such an act illegal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't believe in autocracy or military rule. I believe in representative democracy, where people elect politicians who run on platforms that roughly align with their own beliefs, and these politicians then make decisions from a more educated, rational and well-informed perspective than the local guy down the pub with the aid of top-class civil servants.
    The problem with representative democracy is that the politicians may vote in a way that serves their own interests, but not the interests of most people. Why is it the front benchers who tend to be more europhile? That is because they themselves benefit from the EU, and may get a well-paid job in the EU even if they have failed in their own country (e.g. Tony Blair). On the other hand, you have got some backbenchers who are better representatives of the people. On the Conservative backbench, you have got actual eurosceptics and actual conservatives, including people who want to ban face coverings, and on the Labour backbench, you have also got eurosceptics and actual socialists. Unfortunately, the front bench kind of elite political class are overrepresented in representative democracy. These are the sort of people who live in places that are upper or upper-middle class, where there are no radical Islamists, so they have no idea what it is like to live amongst them. The only time they meet Muslims are during publicity stunts, where they meet moderate Muslims and say that Muslims on a whole "are such nice people", when they have only met a few. Also, if you look at those statistics, it is 55% of people surveyed who want face-covering laws similar to in France, and 80% of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, so that is clearly not just an opinion a local guy at the pub has, and that has got to include many educated, rational and well-informed people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The problem with representative democracy is that the politicians may vote in a way that serves their own interests, but not the interests of most people. Why is it the front benchers who tend to be more europhile? That is because they themselves benefit from the EU, and may get a well-paid job in the EU even if they have failed in their own country (e.g. Tony Blair). On the other hand, you have got some backbenchers who are better representatives of the people. On the Conservative backbench, you have got actual eurosceptics and actual conservatives, including people who want to ban face coverings, and on the Labour backbench, you have also got eurosceptics and actual socialists. Unfortunately, the front bench kind of elite political class are overrepresented in representative democracy. These are the sort of people who live in places that are upper or upper-middle class, where there are no radical Islamists, so they have no idea what it is like to live amongst them. The only time they meet Muslims are during publicity stunts, where they meet moderate Muslims and say that Muslims on a whole "are such nice people", when they have only met a few. Also, if you look at those statistics, it is 55% of people surveyed who want face-covering laws similar to in France, and 80% of Brits “support a ban on full face veils being worn in schools, courts and hospitals, so that is clearly not just an opinion a local guy at the pub has, and that has got to include many educated, rational and well-informed people.
    I'm not saying it's perfect, but for me it's the best option we have. I do share your concerns which is part of the reason why I support parties trying to engage their supporters at large much more in internal elections and policy making: hence the new Labour leadership election process which has led to someone who was a backbench socialist eurosceptic becoming leader. Hopefully in time the same will apply to MP selections and we will see more true Labour socialists and Tory conservatives having actual debates rather than suited-and-booted career politicians making a big show over small details whilst focusing on their next job.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    There is a difference between people who may pose a security threat and people who are a security threat. People who use a face covering pose a security threat (as you do not know if they are obscuring their face so they can get away with a crime), but may not be a threat to security themselves.

    If you would read the bill carefully, only items where the primary purpose of their use is to obscure one's face are listed as face coverings. And I never said that I am banning all hats everywhere. I only said that I can consider a ban on the wearing of hats with large brims indoors if they have the potential to obscure one's face, as long as they are not subject to the exemptions listed in the bill. As for hoods and coats, unless the primary purpose of the wearer is to use these items to obscure the wearer's face, they are not face coverings.
    You might want to be more careful in your wording, the wording you have used implies that ALL people covering their faces are security risks. And once again, why should hats only be inside, after all, it's not like CCTV outside can magically see through hats but those inside cannot, you have still failed to state how large "large" is, and now we're getting clear inconsistencies, a hat can be a face covering, even if not intentional, but a hood or coat canot
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    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?
    There is that thing called a naqab
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You might want to be more careful in your wording, the wording you have used implies that ALL people covering their faces are security risks. And once again, why should hats only be inside, after all, it's not like CCTV outside can magically see through hats but those inside cannot, you have still failed to state how large "large" is, and now we're getting clear inconsistencies, a hat can be a face covering, even if not intentional, but a hood or coat canot
    First of all, I never said that I will ban hats, as you have suggested in previous posts/the bar. I only said that I can ban the wearing of hats indoors for security reasons, but that does not mean that I will ban them. I do think hats should be banned outdoors, as hats can be used to protect one's face from being exposed to harmful sunlight, which is means wearing hats outdoors is not prohibited under the exemptions of the ban on face coverings, as they are used for reasons of health and safety. I think that an individual's health is just as important security, as both are meant to keep people safe and secure, which is why there is that exception.

    The wearing of hats, hoods, and coats can be prohibited under this bill if the primary purpose of wearing or using said garment or object in a public place is to obscure the individual's face. On the other hand, hats, hoods, and coats may not be face coverings if they are not used to obscure one's face, so they are not banned under this bill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, another reason why the public use of face coverings should be banned:
    http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...er--WyjD8xietl

    And guess what, you lot have another person on your side:
    http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...up--Z1gOadArdg
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Lol, another reason why the public use of face coverings should be banned:
    http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...er--WyjD8xietl

    And guess what, you lot have another person on your side:
    http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...up--Z1gOadArdg
    Wouldnt the top one be excused under your entertainment clause.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Wouldnt the top one be excused under your entertainment clause.
    How is meeting a secret lover entertainment?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How is meeting a secret lover entertainment?
    Never seen a naked willy dance? Very entertaining. You could say he was off to "entertain" his partner
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I am going to have to disagree with you on this, as I am strongly against multiculturalism. Immigrants to the UK should assimilate into British society and give up their old culture, or we may end up with a culture where Sharia law is acceptable. As for the your point about a third generation Jamaican, where did anyone say that a third generation Jamaican does not belong here if he grows up here and embraces British culture?
    Why should immigrants have to give up their old culture, if said culture does not break the law? How far do you go with that? Should I not be able to set my shoe by the fireplace this Sunday to celebrate St. Nicholas? Should I not be able to do the gifts and poetry thing on the 5th of December? I do confess that the quality of said poetry may be atrocious - it's often meant to be that way - but that does not mean that it poses a threat to British society, nor its culture.

    Similarly, I have never participated in Morris Dancing, cheese rolling or bog snorkeling. I don't even go to the pub, as I do not drink alcohol. Such activities are not mandatory, though. If they were to become so, I think that many Brits would feel just a bit disgruntled.

    As to the Act, I am not an MP, so whatever I say won't matter to the eventual outcome of the vote, but I do not support it. From a women's rights perspective, I do have concerns about there being women who are pressured to wear the veil. However, I do not feel that a ban is the solution to this. Those women who are pressured into wearing it may suddenly find themselves unable to go outside. Does our care for their well-being stop at the door, once we no longer have to look at their outfits? Any assistance towards the ladies finding themselves under pressure should be of a more sensitive and practical nature. Not in potentially limiting their freedom even more. And as for the ladies who choose to wear the veil, why should they not be allowed to do so?

    There is a bit of a trend going on, of wanting to ban or tax anything (some) people don't like. This often gets in the way of looking for genuine solutions. We should be careful with this, because in the process, we might limit people's freedom step by little step, further and further, and I, for one, feel that that is a cause for concern.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How is meeting a secret lover entertainment?
    What james said.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Why should immigrants have to give up their old culture, if said culture does not break the law? How far do you go with that? Should I not be able to set my shoe by the fireplace this Sunday to celebrate St. Nicholas? Should I not be able to do the gifts and poetry thing on the 5th of December? I do confess that the quality of said poetry may be atrocious - it's often meant to be that way - but that does not mean that it poses a threat to British society, nor its culture.

    Similarly, I have never participated in Morris Dancing, cheese rolling or bog snorkeling. I don't even go to the pub, as I do not drink alcohol. Such activities are not mandatory, though. If they were to become so, I think that many Brits would feel just a bit disgruntled.

    As to the Act, I am not an MP, so whatever I say won't matter to the eventual outcome of the vote, but I do not support it. From a women's rights perspective, I do have concerns about there being women who are pressured to wear the veil. However, I do not feel that a ban is the solution to this. Those women who are pressured into wearing it may suddenly find themselves unable to go outside. Does our care for their well-being stop at the door, once we no longer have to look at their outfits? Any assistance towards the ladies finding themselves under pressure should be of a more sensitive and practical nature. Not in potentially limiting their freedom even more. And as for the ladies who choose to wear the veil, why should they not be allowed to do so?

    There is a bit of a trend going on, of wanting to ban or tax anything (some) people don't like. This often gets in the way of looking for genuine solutions. We should be careful with this, because in the process, we might limit people's freedom step by little step, further and further, and I, for one, feel that that is a cause for concern.
    In my opinion, immigrants need to assimilate to the extent that their culture does not contradict British culture. You may set your shoe by the fireplace this Sunday to celebrate St. Nicholas, and you may do the gifts and poetry thing on the 5th of December, as these things do not pose a threat to British culture and security.

    You do not need to participate in traditions that are regarded to be part of British culture to be successfully assimilated. You only need to accept British culture as your culture, and not contradict it with practices from another culture.

    It is indeed unfortunate that some women are being forced against their will to wear the face veil, and the government should ensure that police, intelligence services, and social workers actually take action in finding and arresting people who force others to wear a face veil, whilst social workers help rehabilitate and assimilate the victims. In other words, there should not be a situation like the Rotherham scandal where police and intelligence services protect criminals, including paedophiles, rape gangs, and child traffickers, and where social services blamed the victims for bringing their suffering upon themselves.

    As for the ladies who choose to wear the veil, wearing a veil poses a security risk, as I have explained earlier in this debate, and I feel that this is necessary even if it limits some articles of clothing. If people are allowed to wear the burqa or the niqab in public and not get stopped by police, why should I get stopped by police if I go around in public wearing a balaclava? It is still my choice as to what I wear, is it not? Muslim women can still wear the hijab, and face coverings are not required under Islam, so the women who decide to wear face coverings are doing it for cultural reasons, suggesting a lack of assimilation (as this cultural practice can pose a security threat).
 
 
 
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 agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.