Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't take them long to suspend this. I'm not surprised really, it is just snazzy wet suit. It seams like people want to ban something because they are scared, showing me that terrorism is a great way to drive a wedge between people. It's not as if this even covers the face, so security isn't a problem with it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What I don't get is why don't the EU court of human rights intervene on French laws like these? Whereas when UK tries to do absolutely anything (nothing even as extreme as banning the burka) the EU human rights court goes crazy
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    It was incredibly relevant. It was a question of human rights and freedoms against a majority sentiment. I scaled up the issue to murder so you would see the problem with your view. The freedom to wear what you like is not as important as the right to life but neither is the freedom from slavery. Does that mean slavery should be allowed if the majority of people supported it? No, of course not. So why should we allow the double standard for the freedom to dress as you like?

    I know people argue against leaving the EU but as I said, leaving the EU does not conflict with civil liberties.

    If you are still confused, I'll simplify the question:

    Do you support going against human rights/freedoms if there is a majority backing?
    My view is not as significant as murder, you're escalating your view point to make others believe your right. In this, no harm is coming to Muslims by not letting them wear a Burkini, whereas you are likening this to slavery and murdur which is ridiculous. I likened it to a nonsensical political matter because overall the change has no major affect on people. You don't need to simplify the question because it has no stance in the argument held.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Might as well ban hoodies, buffs, masks and any other item of clothing that obscures a person's features then.


    I don't like Bible-bashers either but wearing a burqa isn't telling me to convert to Islam. We also can't ban anything we don't like or that offends us. I know, shocking that not all liberals are triggered SJWs (this comment isn't directed at you in particular btw).
    Hoodies and masks are different because you can ask someone to remove them whereas if you ask someone to remove their religious clothing, you're immediately branded racist for trying to do something which is common sense.
    Besides, in a some areas, hoodies, masks etc... Are banned for security risks but you can't do this on a piece of clothing because it's "religious".

    I know someone who's mother wears the thing which covers a woman's hair but not face and his sister chooses to not wear anything on her face at all. So you can't say it's religious when she is herself but chooses not to wear it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scienceisgood)
    Hoodies and masks are different because you can ask someone to remove them whereas if you ask someone to remove their religious clothing, you're immediately branded racist for trying to do something which is common sense.
    Besides, in a some areas, hoodies, masks etc... Are banned for security risks but you can't do this on a piece of clothing because it's "religious".

    I know someone who's mother wears the thing which covers a woman's hair but not face and his sister chooses to not wear anything on her face at all. So you can't say it's religious when she is herself but chooses not to wear it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's no reason to remove the clothing in the first place though.. especially when wetsuits are equally capable of concealing weapons, lmfao
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ollie1024)
    My view is not as significant as murder, you're escalating your view point to make others believe your right. In this, no harm is coming to Muslims by not letting them wear a Burkini, whereas you are likening this to slavery and murdur which is ridiculous. I likened it to a nonsensical political matter because overall the change has no major affect on people. You don't need to simplify the question because it has no stance in the argument held.
    You are deliberately avoiding the question because you don't want to admit to hypocrisy.

    Either you accept that you hold a double standard when it comes to civil liberties (some freedoms are less important than national law) or you support repealing the ban.

    I acknowledged that wearing the burkini is less important than most freedoms but it is a freedom nonetheless. If you support the ban then you should have no problem with dictating what people are allowed to wear in general. You should support the government telling people that they can't wear dresses, that they can't wear white trainers and that hats of any kind are banned. No harm is coming to anyone here either.

    So I ask you again. This time, not in relation to the burkini but imagine this is a fresh thread and this question is given in a vacuum with no other context. Do you support the curtailing of individual rights and freedom due to majority rule?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    There's no reason to remove the clothing in the first place though.. especially when wetsuits are equally capable of concealing weapons, lmfao
    I think is he case of burkinis, it's more or less you can't have one without the other so, ban he Burkha = ban the burkinis.
    So, equal treatment.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479

    Thank **** the French high administrative court is stopping this, it was not only ridiculous, ineffective, discriminatory - but also technically illegal.
    Glad to see not all french are racist & prejudiced.

    Let all women wear burkinis, all over body coverin in solidarity

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Can we also ban old men wearing speedos as well nothing worse.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scienceisgood)
    Hoodies and masks are different because you can ask someone to remove them whereas if you ask someone to remove their religious clothing, you're immediately branded racist for trying to do something which is common sense.
    Besides, in a some areas, hoodies, masks etc... Are banned for security risks but you can't do this on a piece of clothing because it's "religious".

    I know someone who's mother wears the thing which covers a woman's hair but not face and his sister chooses to not wear anything on her face at all. So you can't say it's religious when she is herself but chooses not to wear it.
    If you are asking a person to take off their hoodie or mask, they are probably in the process of being detained, or at least stopped and searched. Are you telling me that no burqa-wearing woman has ever been stopped/arrested by the police? I am sure that there has been multiple situations where a woman has had to take off a burqa for identification. And I am equally sure that when an authority makes such a request, they aren't instantly accused of racism.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    this is all a distraction.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    If you are asking a person to take off their hoodie or mask, they are probably in the process of being detained, or at least stopped and searched. Are you telling me that no burqa-wearing woman has ever been stopped/arrested by the police? I am sure that there has been multiple situations where a woman has had to take off a burqa for identification. And I am equally sure that when an authority makes such a request, they aren't instantly accused of racism.
    I've seen a person on a bus get asked to show their oyster (you know when a ticket inspector gets on a bus and asks to see Oyster cards) and said because I can't ask you to remove it, I have to see another form of identification.
    What stops someone just taking someone's Oyster card and their provisional license and saying their someone else?

    I'm sure if someone said they wouldn't take it off, the police would have a hard time identifying the person if they needed to be.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scienceisgood)
    I've seen a person on a bus get asked to show their oyster (you know when a ticket inspector gets on a bus and asks to see Oyster cards) and said because I can't ask you to remove it, I have to see another form of identification.
    What stops someone just taking someone's Oyster card and their provisional license and saying their someone else?
    A bus journey is relatively minor but I think with more important identity checks such as in banks, officials can request that the burqa be removed (see below).

    In terms of identity theft, what's to stop identity theft in general? Especially when such crime has evolved in the modern age to become more online-oriented.
    (Original post by Scienceisgood)
    I'm sure if someone said they wouldn't take it off, the police would have a hard time identifying the person if they needed to be.
    Under British law, they have to take off the burqa if requested by an official though they are allowed to move to a more private area if there are a lot of people around.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    You are deliberately avoiding the question because you don't want to admit to hypocrisy.

    Either you accept that you hold a double standard when it comes to civil liberties (some freedoms are less important than national law) or you support repealing the ban.

    I acknowledged that wearing the burkini is less important than most freedoms but it is a freedom nonetheless. If you support the ban then you should have no problem with dictating what people are allowed to wear in general. You should support the government telling people that they can't wear dresses, that they can't wear white trainers and that hats of any kind are banned. No harm is coming to anyone here either.

    So I ask you again. This time, not in relation to the burkini but imagine this is a fresh thread and this question is given in a vacuum with no other context. Do you support the curtailing of individual rights and freedom due to majority rule?
    For society to succeed harmoniously, its better for rules to stand when a large majority has a ruling over others, Its what happens now and it works. Now back to your point of murder and slavery because no, I am not trying to avoid your question, I am stating that a matter of clothing has no relevance to the death and meaningless punishment of innocent people. A majority vote would never be needed on a subject of life or death because that would be made by political professionals. So yes to an extend I do and to an extend I believe you're being very narrow minded to put it on one situation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ollie1024)
    For society to succeed harmoniously, its better for rules to stand when a large majority has a ruling over others
    In other words, as long as the majority is happy then society is fine. Despite the minority not getting a say in legislation even if it affects them.

    (Original post by ollie1024)
    Its what happens now and it works.
    It's not what's happening now. Rules enshrined in the Human Rights Act cannot be transgressed by any other legislation. We aren't talking about government in general.

    (Original post by ollie1024)
    Now back to your point of murder and slavery because no, I am not trying to avoid your question, I am stating that a matter of clothing has no relevance to the death and meaningless punishment of innocent people.
    I already acknowledged that clothing is a relatively minor freedom compared to acts of murder and slavery. However, restricting clothing on a religious basis often goes against freedom of expression and freedom of religion. I see rights as equal, you obviously don't. My point was that even if a right seems less important than another, it does not mean you can ignore it.

    The right to marry is less 'important' than the right to life. The freedom of assembly is less 'important' than the freedom from slavery. Does it mean we can cast these aside? No, so why do the same for the freedoms of religion and expression?

    (Original post by ollie1024)
    A majority vote would never be needed on a subject of life or death because that would be made by political professionals.
    Every single law we pass, bar referendums, is done by political professionals. We are a representative democracy.

    (Original post by ollie1024)
    So yes to an extend I do and to an extend I believe you're being very narrow minded to put it on one situation.
    The point of human rights is to be absolute in the vast majority of circumstances; they are designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority (which you seem unconcerned about). It is not narrow-mindedness but a respect for the very reason rights exist that determines my viewpoint. You don't pick and choose which ones you consider less important and therefore can be overridden by domestic law. By disrespecting one (for no good reason), you might as well disrespect the rest as you have let subjectivity influence them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    They would have been asked to remove it as well. KKK and Nazi uniforms are illegal everywhere in France. Stop using false analogies.
    Source? The only info I've found is that there is a ban on full face coverings. As long as you keep the hood down you should be fine
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    In other words, as long as the majority is happy then society is fine. Despite the minority not getting a say in legislation even if it affects them.


    It's not what's happening now. Rules enshrined in the Human Rights Act cannot be transgressed by any other legislation. We aren't talking about government in general.


    I already acknowledged that clothing is a relatively minor freedom compared to acts of murder and slavery. However, restricting clothing on a religious basis often goes against freedom of expression and freedom of religion. I see rights as equal, you obviously don't. My point was that even if a right seems less important than another, it does not mean you can ignore it.

    The right to marry is less 'important' than the right to life. The freedom of assembly is less 'important' than the freedom from slavery. Does it mean we can cast these aside? No, so why do the same for the freedoms of religion and expression?

    Every single law we pass, bar referendums, is done by political professionals. We are a representative democracy.


    The point of human rights is to be absolute in the vast majority of circumstances; they are designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority (which you seem unconcerned about). It is not narrow-mindedness but a respect for the very reason rights exist that determines my viewpoint. You don't pick and choose which ones you consider less important and therefore can be overridden by domestic law. By disrespecting one (for no good reason), you might as well disrespect the rest as you have let subjectivity influence them.
    Er ok, I can't be bother to read that. I submit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Another)
    Source? The only info I've found is that there is a ban on full face coverings. As long as you keep the hood down you should be fine
    The point of the KKK costume is to conceal the face. It's like saying you can wear a burqa as long as you keep the hood down.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Good. A ridiculous policy. But hearing some people compare it to what nuns where............just lol.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    The point of the KKK costume is to conceal the face. It's like saying you can wear a burqa as long as you keep the hood down.
    Why are burqas even being discussed? Burqa bans can understandably be justified as they may present identification/security issues, but none of this applies to burkinis whatsoever

    Poted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: August 27, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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