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

Why I, as a Muslim, am launching a campaign to ban the burka in Britain Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I have watched it yes but you can still see that they have the same facial features. They're not unrecognisable at all. And how many people will go to all that effort when you can simply put on a balaclava or a Burkha and be done with it? I personally think anything that involves covering your face should be banned in public.




    I'm not playing to any fear. I clearly said that I want balaclavas banned too. And please, kindly direct me to where the ECHR states that covering your face is a human right? Having studied Law I have never heard of such a right.
    Did you study it badly? So according to your brilliant legal mind, all things must be laid out completely, then what is the need for Lawyers and Judges? Human rights law does contain freedom from persecution, I am sure that banning face coverings would fall under that, of course law is interpretive so, it could be challenged from both sides of the argument.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    Did you study it badly? So according to your brilliant legal mind, all things must be laid out completely, then what is the need for Lawyers and Judges? Human rights law does contain freedom from persecution, I am sure that banning face coverings would fall under that, of course law is interpretive so, it could be challenged from both sides of the argument.
    Well I got a 2:1 with half my final year modules being firsts so no, I wouldn't say so. Public security overrides. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Furthermore the religion does not REQUIRE you cover your face, it is an interpretation of it. It's not a necessary or essential part of the religion. Being able to see someone's face is necessary for public security, what's the point having CCTV cameras and the like when you can't tell who it is under a burkha? It's ridiculous. There will always be tension between security and liberty; in my opinion, security should come first, especially when it comes to an aspect of religion which is arbitrary and people don't need to do it. You can choose to wear it, you have that discretion. So I think security should be supreme here.

    And as you have just conceded that law is interpretative, that basically undermines your weak attempt to insult my legal skills. Well done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Well I got a 2:1 with half my final year modules being firsts so no, I wouldn't say so. Public security overrides. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Furthermore the religion does not REQUIRE you cover your face, it is an interpretation of it. It's not a necessary or essential part of the religion. Being able to see someone's face is necessary for public security, what's the point having CCTV cameras and the like when you can't tell who it is under a burkha? It's ridiculous. There will always be tension between security and liberty; in my opinion, security should come first, especially when it comes to an aspect of religion which is arbitrary and people don't need to do it. You can choose to wear it, you have that discretion. So I think security should be supreme here.

    And as you have just conceded that law is interpretative, that basically undermines your weak attempt to insult my legal skills. Well done.
    You posted this:

    "And please, kindly direct me to where the ECHR states that covering your face is a human right? Having studied Law I have never heard of such a right. "

    Implying that each and every law has to be clearly worded, we all know this is not true, that is why precedents are used to challenge or defend, points of law. That is why I called your legal skills into question.

    I don't see that banning face coverings in public is necessarily a need for security. Maybe we should stop people wearing clothes, they then would not be able to conceal weapons or drugs. The police have enough powers to detain and search as it is, we fought the most horrendous war to rid our selves of Naziism, why do some want it to return.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    You posted this:

    "And please, kindly direct me to where the ECHR states that covering your face is a human right? Having studied Law I have never heard of such a right. "

    Implying that each and every law has to be clearly worded, we all know this is not true, that is why precedents are used to challenge or defend, points of law. That is why I called your legal skills into question.

    I don't see that banning face coverings in public is necessarily a need for security. Maybe we should stop people wearing clothes, they then would not be able to conceal weapons or drugs. The police have enough powers to detain and search as it is, we fought the most horrendous war to rid our selves of Naziism, why do some want it to return.
    You said "what about the human rights" what about them? Covering your face is not a human right. That was my point. I know full well how law works, as I said, I have a degree in it. Face banning IS a need for security, you don't know who the hell that person is. When a woman goes into a public toilet and someone in a burka goes in, to be frank, that could be a man in there and you wouldn't know. It's not safe. And comparing this to the Nazis? Oh please. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    Did you study it badly? So according to your brilliant legal mind, all things must be laid out completely, then what is the need for Lawyers and Judges? Human rights law does contain freedom from persecution, I am sure that banning face coverings would fall under that, of course law is interpretive so, it could be challenged from both sides of the argument.
    what law are you arguing protects peoples rights to wear face coverings in public.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Fundamentally there should be one set law regarding all forms of face coverings. I ride a motorbike and I HAVE to take my helmet off whenever I walk into any form of a shop simply because its deemed intimidating. When I question why - its because they cant see my face, and the CCTV cannot get a clear record of my face and who I am.

    The same argument should be applied to women who wear the veil. The CCTV cannot get a clear facial image of them, and their faces are covered. Surely this means this is equally as intimidating.

    I have no qualms with the veil or burka, the serious double standard around this issue does seriously get my gripe. Religion or not, one law should be in place for all the citizens of the land.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    You said "what about the human rights" what about them? Covering your face is not a human right. That was my point. I know full well how law works, as I said, I have a degree in it. Face banning IS a need for security, you don't know who the hell that person is. When a woman goes into a public toilet and someone in a burka goes in, to be frank, that could be a man in there and you wouldn't know. It's not safe. And comparing this to the Nazis? Oh please. :rolleyes:
    If a transvestite goes into a ladies toilet, you would have the exact same scenario, but transvestites are not stopped from altering their appearance.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    If a transvestite goes into a ladies toilet, you would have the exact same scenario, but transvestites are not stopped from altering their appearance.
    You can still see their faces though. It's not the same at all. And what I was saying was more than men could wear burkhas and go into places for women to rape etc. You've already compared not wanting people to cover their faces in public to what the Nazis did, aka genocide and wanting to completely wipe out a race, so how about you come up with some more realistic comparisons or just stop?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    what law are you arguing protects peoples rights to wear face coverings in public.
    The law of common sense, I have just posted on Transvestites, why are they excluded from this law, they could still alter their appearance, I saw one years ago, and he looked nothing like himself. If this is a needed law for security, then surely transvestites should be outlawed.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Great news.

    The veil is incredibly rude and has no place in our society.
    No you're incredibly rude for not respecting a person's right to freedom.

    You have no place in our society
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    The law of common sense, I have just posted on Transvestites, why are they excluded from this law, they could still alter their appearance, I saw one years ago, and he looked nothing like himself. If this is a needed law for security, then surely transvestites should be outlawed.
    could you link me to the post.

    The transvestite argument does not work.

    A) evidence of their original appearance will still exist. Unless they engage in a potentially international quest to destroy all evidence of their original appearance.

    b) the change takes far far longer. Putting on a burka/taking one off does not take a vast amount of time. Major facial surgery does. Which (assuming witness were present) leaves plenty of time for the criminal to be apprehended.

    If you commit a crime with your face totally covered it is significantly harder to locate the person. You need somewhere to start and given the nature and place of the crime DNA evidence might not be reliable. You would need to back it up with witness accounts
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    could you link me to the post.

    The transvestite argument does not work.

    A) evidence of their original appearance will still exist. Unless they engage in a potentially international quest to destroy all evidence of their original appearance.

    b) the change takes far far longer. Putting on a burka/taking one off does not take a vast amount of time. Major facial surgery does. Which (assuming witness were present) leaves plenty of time for the criminal to be apprehended.

    If you commit a crime with your face totally covered it is significantly harder to locate the person. You need somewhere to start and given the nature and place of the crime DNA evidence might not be reliable. You would need to back it up with witness accounts
    Finally some common sense. You can see a transvestite's face anyway and unless they have had significant facial surgery you can still tell it's them from their features. Burkhas mean you can't see someone's face at all, whether they're male or female or whatever. Absolutely ludicrous comparison.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How are you a Muslim if your username has the name atheist in it? Which btw you spelt wrong..
    Also if a woman wants to wear a burkha then she should be allowed to.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mubariz)
    The right is the right to practice your religion freely.

    Now the Quran says dress modestly and hide your beauty etc, it leaves that open to interpretation so if people interpret this as a burka then they are free to.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really? In the Bible it says

    If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city

    BRB gonna do some stoning. It's my right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    could you link me to the post.

    The transvestite argument does not work.

    A) evidence of their original appearance will still exist. Unless they engage in a potentially international quest to destroy all evidence of their original appearance.

    b) the change takes far far longer. Putting on a burka/taking one off does not take a vast amount of time. Major facial surgery does. Which (assuming witness were present) leaves plenty of time for the criminal to be apprehended.

    If you commit a crime with your face totally covered it is significantly harder to locate the person. You need somewhere to start and given the nature and place of the crime DNA evidence might not be reliable. You would need to back it up with witness accounts
    I could have produced much better pics than this, I chose to use a blatant one, so given that you, the witness to "The crime", were to describe the person you saw, what would you say?

    Name:  cross dresser.jpg
Views: 80
Size:  15.0 KB

    Don't forget you have only seen one of these people, you have no comparisons.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just gonna repeat what others have said.

    Stop reading the daily mail! Stop it!


    now
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 does not require such intent. Private nudist beaches will unlikely result in prosecution because they have made it so that they will not be in hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

    Quit dancing around semantics in an attempt to be difficult. Public nudism is, generally, illegal, save for a few narrow exceptions. Swearing at someone aggressively in public is also generally illegal, even though there is no provision that specifically refers to this. Again, there will be exceptions such as public performances.
    So, it's not illegal.

    Thanks for the clarification.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordanap)
    Really? In the Bible it says

    If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city

    BRB gonna do some stoning. It's my right
    You aren't allowed to take anybody else's human rights away.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Do you not think it's a tad hypocritical that individuals accusing others of forcing the burka on women then do the exact same and force the contrary? Both in the eyes of the other are oppressive zealots. I have to admit, as a Muslim, I am not sure where my stance lies on the burka in good faith, but I would be open minded enough to allow people to make their own choice, and would be willing to listen to arguments from either side. I can't say I understand this article's dogmatism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    You can still see their faces though. It's not the same at all. And what I was saying was more than men could wear burkhas and go into places for women to rape etc. You've already compared not wanting people to cover their faces in public to what the Nazis did, aka genocide and wanting to completely wipe out a race, so how about you come up with some more realistic comparisons or just stop?
    If you were a lawyer , would you refuse to defend a person who was charged with covering up their face?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.