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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If this is amended so it doesn't extend to religious clothing I might consider it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Some may find this surprising, but it's an aye to this from me. My main problem with people covering their faces is if someone were to commit a violent act towards another person, or indeed to steal something from a shop, whilst covering their face with a piece of clothing they would be much harder to identify. This isn't discriminatory, as I believe it isn't actually a religious requirement for Muslim women to wear the full face veil, and those who would otherwise do so can just wear a hijab instead.
    A criminal could be protected by the bill, the main people who get hit by it are those who do so for religious reasons.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    A criminal could be protected by the bill, the main people who get hit by it are those who do so for religious reasons.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Yes, I am ok with allowing all citizens the free choice to cover their faces should they wish to do so. If you would talk to a few Muslim women, you will find that it is not seen as a system of control, but an exercise in free religious expression and modesty, as well as devotion to those that they love.

    Why shouldn't I be allowed to wear my balaclava to the bank? It's nice and cosy,and I find it 'entertaining'.
    Yeah, sure… As far as I know, the main point is to hide them from other men because it's what their jealous hubbies wish.

    It's actually a funny issue because it leads to clashes between different sorts of liberals – those who argue with religious freedom against those who argue with equality. :laugh:

    Even if some women really want to cover their faces and are not saying it only to please their husbands or follow their hateful religion, there are undoubtedly many who do not, yet can't do anything about it in fear of repercussions that would follow. Therefore, I think it's better to protect the interests of the latter group by banning the practice altogether. Another argument is that immigrants should acculturate to the society native to the country in which they live.

    The ban is already effective in France and Belgium and I hope that the UK will follow.

    I'd like to see you try it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Some may find this surprising, but it's an aye to this from me. My main problem with people covering their faces is if someone were to commit a violent act towards another person, or indeed to steal something from a shop, whilst covering their face with a piece of clothing they would be much harder to identify. This isn't discriminatory, as I believe it isn't actually a religious requirement for Muslim women to wear the full face veil, and those who would otherwise do so can just wear a hijab instead.
    Quite. The internet offers videos of women under those ‘bedsheets’ stealing from shops without being recognisable. There's a lot of room under there and no way of checking. If the face is exposed, the police at least stand a chance at identifying them.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    The main point of the face vail is to stop the man for falling for a pretty girl and making them get to know the persons personality instead.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Much as I hate the niqab, and though it absolutely needs to be banned in schools and in courts, I think this bill goes too far and offers too many loopholes.

    If the bill restricted itself to people working in the public sector then I could support it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Quite. The internet offers videos of women under those ‘bedsheets’ stealing from shops without being recognisable. There's a lot of room under there and no way of checking. If the face is exposed, the police at least stand a chance at identifying them.
    Absolutely. Much as I'm in favour of individual liberty to choose one's clothing, that has to be trumped by security concerns.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The main point of the face vail is to stop the man for falling for a pretty girl and making them get to know the persons personality instead.
    That's bull****. Their marriages are almost exclusively arranged by the parents.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Yeah, sure… As far as I know, the main point is to hide them from public because it's what their jealous hubbies wish.

    It's actually a funny issue because it leads to clashes between different sorts of liberals – those who argue with religious freedom against those who argue with equality. :laugh:

    Even if some women really want to cover their faces and are not saying it only to please their husbands or follow their hateful religion, there are undoubtedly many who do not, yet can't do anything about it in fear of repercussions that would follow. Therefore, I think it's better to protect the interests of the latter group by banning the practice altogether. Another argument is that immigrants should acculturate to the society native to the country in which they live.

    The ban is already effective in France and Belgium and I hope that the UK will follow.

    I'd like to see you try it.
    Most Muslims I have spoken to would disagree, and the Burqa isn't just for married women.

    I really don't think it's fair to describe Islam as a 'hateful' religion in any case. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are regular, peaceful people. You can get far more violent Christian extremists, but no one describes Christianity as 'hateful' in the West. This blatant orientalism is for a different debate though. What benefit would banning the practice bring anyway? If husbands are oppressive, there's still many ways they can oppress their wives, and the anti-burqa brigade seems uninterested in addressing them. The argument certainly doesn't wash; it is quite clear to everyone that it is just a means of false justification for those who fear those who are culturally 'other'. Futhermore, asserting that all burqa-wearers are immigrants is factually untrue.

    Why do you wish to see the UK follow? All it will do is insult UK citizens.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That's bull****. Their marriages are almost exclusively arranged by the parents.
    Even arranged marriages have to have love. Either person can refuse to marry their arranged partner.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    How?
    2.2.e
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Are you really okay with putting the interests of a distant hateful religion which uses facial coverings to manifest control and oppression over women above the interests of safety and local culture?
    Time to quote the worst episode of The West Wing: "'Islamic extremists are to Islam as ______ is to Christianity.' What is blank?"
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be abstaining.

    In principal I find the notion that the state should tell me what to wear offensive. In practice this is Britain and we are not a Muslim country, integrate or leave.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would also add the exception "under extreme weather conditions".



    To all people who disagree with this bill, you should therefore have no problem with public nudity and propose a bill allowing it in the places listed in this bill.

    It's the freedom to wear what you want after all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    I would also add the exception "under extreme weather conditions".



    To all people who disagree with this bill, you should therefore have no problem with public nudity and propose a bill allowing it in the places listed in this bill.

    It's the freedom to wear what you want after all.
    Wearing what you want is quite obviously not the same as wearing nothing at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The main point of the face vail is to stop the man for falling for a pretty girl and making them get to know the persons personality instead.
    (Original post by Aph)
    Even arranged marriages have to have love. Either person can refuse to marry their arranged partner.
    You seriously think that? :lolwut:
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Josb)
    You seriously think that? :lolwut:
    It's the truth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Wearing what you want is quite obviously not the same as wearing nothing at all.
    Nudists would disagree, but they shut up and accept the law. They do it at home and in special places. I don't see why other people wouldn't be able to just show their face in public.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I would also add the exception "under extreme weather conditions".

    To all people who disagree with this bill, you should therefore have no problem with public nudity and propose a bill allowing it in the places listed in this bill.

    It's the freedom to wear what you want after all.
    I actually have no issue with public nudity generally.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Most Muslims I have spoken to would disagree, and the Burqa isn't just for married women.

    I really don't think it's fair to describe Islam as a 'hateful' religion in any case. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are regular, peaceful people. You can get far more violent Christian extremists, but no one describes Christianity as 'hateful' in the West. This blatant orientalism is for a different debate though. What benefit would banning the practice bring anyway? If husbands are oppressive, there's still many ways they can oppress their wives, and the anti-burqa brigade seems uninterested in addressing them. The argument certainly doesn't wash; it is quite clear to everyone that it is just a means of false justification for those who fear those who are culturally 'other'. Futhermore, asserting that all burqa-wearers are immigrants is factually untrue.

    Why do you wish to see the UK follow? All it will do is insult UK citizens.
    I think the statistics would offer a different view, plus I'm sure you know there's no smoke without fire. Modern Christians tend not to slit throats, blow themselves up in public places or wage wars ‘for their god’ and shout his name whenever they manage to kill the enemy (which includes yourself).

    Rome wasn't built in a day and if we can make a step in the right direction, should we really be discouraged if we can't solve the issue in its entirety? We'd do very little if that were the case and I'm personally very much interested in addressing them.

    No, it's not that they're culturally other. It's the fact that their culture is completely against our values and has no place in Europe, just like our culture isn't welcome in places where they come from. I think it's quite fair.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Even arranged marriages have to have love. Either person can refuse to marry their arranged partner.
    You're clearly unfamiliar with the kind of people that mask their daughters and wives.

    (Original post by Josb)
    To all people who disagree with this bill, you should therefore have no problem with public nudity and propose a bill allowing it in the places listed in this bill.It's the freedom to wear what you want after all.
    Nice argument. :yy: Furthermore, in the interest of fairness and less hypocrisy, freedom to wear nothing at all in Saudi Arabia.
 
 
 
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.