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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MedioCentro97)
    So if this continued, it'd take atleast 100 years for them to be a majority. And that's if the non muslim population doesn't increase at all. Extremely unlikely. Your nationalistic mind is not only worryingly racist, but lacking intellectually.
    Much less than 100 years, you don't seem to know anything of current demographics. Now is 5%, in 10 year 10%, 20 years 20%, 30 years 40% 35 years 50%.Lol, what race am I supposedly racist against?

    You are a winner! You called someone racist, how do you feel?

    You need to perform some research and look at the UK population, you are clearly ignorant.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MedioCentro97)
    I think you'll find it really is true. Otherwise WC would be just as backwards as what we see in the ME.
    Yes, the only difference between Western civilisation and the Middle East is choice of clothing *face palm*.

    (Original post by noey123)
    The burqa is not even compulsory in Islam. However, I do not support the ban. I only support it in cases of security such as airports, banks etc. otherwise, who are we to stop others from practicing their religion?

    You have just stated two contradictory statements
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I agree with you.
    I don't like seeing women wear it but at the end of the day I value personal liberty highly. I'd focus on trying to assimilate and educate Muslim women to the point that they don't feel they need to hide away rather than simply banning them from wearing it.

    Prevention is better than cure.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Assimilation is especially not possible in a society that allows for the wearing of Burkas / Niqabs. Assimilation would not occur anyway, but a ban would help, even if it is just a little.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Do you also complain about laws forbidding indecent exposure, or naturism?

    The laws already force people not to be completely naked; by this logic, I don't see why a law shouldn't order people not to be completely covered.

    People are indeed frightened by Islam for good reasons, and they despise it accordingly.
    Nudity is not illegal in this country... It's only illegal if the person does it with intent to cause alarm or distress haha, nudity by itself is not illegal.

    What are these "good reasons" to be frightened of Islam? All religions slow scientific progress but why specifically target Islam, Christianity is just as bad? Better eduction and social intelligence will fade out religions anyway. The problem is that people don't "despise it accordingly", they despise it superfluously, do you think Trump wanting to ban all Muslims entering is "accordingly"?

    Banning a specific piece of clothing because of its religious connotations would only be a prelude to an authoritarian regime. If part of a religion is at odds with the law then I completely agree with its censorship, but banning something because some people get scared when people think differently is a blindingly obvious lack of Liberty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I found this interesting. Not sure where I stand on it. It should obviously be banned in airports and other places where it is absolutely necessary to see people's faces for security reasons, but I worry banning it in all public places could help open the doors to a surveillance culture where people must always have their faces on show. I certainly sympathise with the sentiments behind banning face-covering Islamic veils though, Islam should not be welcomed in this country. But I think I favour liberty. Politicians and the BBC stopping with the fawning platitudes about Islam would be a better option, as would banning faith schools, which would be the best option.
    http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-e...urqa-ban-poll/
    you expressed flawlessly what I think as well - you're (as well, like few others here) using an argument based on principle, and most people (i.e. a majority - the same majority as this one in the story) don't believe what they do, politically, through principles - they pick and choose what they desire in politics which can, from a level of fundamental principle, contradict completely - i.e. a support for freedom of speech yet a belief that the burqa or burkini should be banned regardless.

    so I, like you, am tempted to support the narrative that the burqa should be banned based on my disgust of islam and its culture, but I can't let mere disgust make me throw out my principles and fundamental notions of truth (i.e. that liberty is more important than comfort or peace of mind)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanderson596)
    I think Brits should take pride in the fact that the UK is and has always been a rather relaxed, liberal country when it comes to dress.
    This would be excluding the Victorian period I presume which was famously conservative and prudish when it came to dress sense, to the extent that they covered up table legs and viewed women as prostitutes if they showed their ankles.

    What makes us great is we tend not to tell other people what and what not to wear, individual choice is what we're all about.
    We should be tolerant of everything, except for intolerance. The niqab was not born of choice, but rather the exact opposite: it is intended to suppress people's right to choose. If we don't ban the niqab, we are not protecting anyone's freedom, all we are doing is ceding control over what Muslim women wear to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. In other words, either we take a stand and enact a very small curtailment of people's 'freedom' to choose not to be free, or we give free reign to people who don't value freedom or tolerance or unity in diversity.

    It's like the question of mandatory voting. Is it really a curtailment of someone's freedom to forbid them from opposing freedom? If you believe that freedom is worth protecting, then, however paradoxical it may seem, you have to protect it even when doing so might seem to go against the principal of total freedom of choice. And if you don't believe that freedom is always worth protecting then you should have no problem with limiting it. Anyhow, there is a middle way between a totally free society and a police state, namely 'freedom within limits', and that is the ideal to strive for: not extremism, but moderation.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Literally just men telling women what they can and can't do again. The real issue here is patriarchy and misogyny, not religion or culture.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarah1778)
    Literally just men telling women what they can and can't do again. The real issue here is patriarchy and misogyny, not religion or culture.
    Sounds like some one is a big brave girl.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajay1998)
    Well who cares if muslims would want to see the wahabi dressed banned (which I'm not sure is even true). The principle still stands, people should be allowed to wear what they want, including the wahabi dress, even if many muslims ''would be glad'. The governement shouldn't dictate what people can and cannot wear, it's authoritarian.
    No, people shouldn't be able to dress like they want. There should be boundaries.
    Otherwise, you could allow that sort of shirt:




    (Original post by ajay1998)
    You can compare them in the sense they're both expressions of religion. I guess a more appropriate comparison is the dress those Catholic nuns wear.
    No, Catholic nuns are not laywomen, they are professionals and their dress is a kind of uniform.



    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    Nudity is not illegal in this country... It's only illegal if the person does it with intent to cause alarm or distress haha, nudity by itself is not illegal.

    What are these "good reasons" to be frightened of Islam? All religions slow scientific progress but why specifically target Islam, Christianity is just as bad? Better eduction and social intelligence will fade out religions anyway. The problem is that people don't "despise it accordingly", they despise it superfluously, do you think Trump wanting to ban all Muslims entering is "accordingly"?

    Banning a specific piece of clothing because of its religious connotations would only be a prelude to an authoritarian regime. If part of a religion is at odds with the law then I completely agree with its censorship, but banning something because some people get scared when people think differently is a blindingly obvious lack of Liberty.
    You never heard of terrorist attacks motivated by Islam throughout the world? Christians or any other religious people don't plant bomb or kills random people in western Europe because their holy books encouraged to do so. People didn't hate Islam that much before all these attacks.

    Banning a specific piece of clothing would not be a prelude to an authoritarian regime. :rolleyes:

    The prelude to an authoritarian regime would be altering election laws, banning parties or newspapers, forbidding some politicians to talk, etc. Otherwise, I could say banning some fattening foods or whatever dangerous product is reducing my liberty to buy and consume what I want, and that would lead to dictatorship!!!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It'd be interesting to see what people on TSR, regulars and visitors, think. Perhaps we can do a poll here? KingBradley Can you make a thread with voting options?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You never heard of terrorist attacks motivated by Islam throughout the world? Christians or any other religious people don't plant bomb or kills random people in western Europe because their holy books encouraged to do so. People didn't hate Islam that much before all these attacks.

    Banning a specific piece of clothing would not be a prelude to an authoritarian regime. :rolleyes:

    The prelude to an authoritarian regime would be altering election laws, banning parties or newspapers, forbidding some politicians to talk, etc. Otherwise, I could say banning some fattening foods or whatever dangerous product is reducing my liberty to buy and consume what I want, and that would lead to dictatorship!!!
    The number of Islamic terrorists compared to the number of Muslims is negligible. That's not "good reason" to be frightened of an entire religion. It's like saying every Christian is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, every Jew is an extremist, every non-religious person is Stalin or Mao.

    How can you say "Christians or any other religious people don't plant bomb or kills random people in western Europe because their holy books encouraged to do so." You've never heard of Christian or Jewish extremists? A Jewish extremist assassinated the Israeli president in 1995! Or even Christians fighting in a war because their holy book says it's okay? What about the IRA or ETA terrorist attacks in Western Europe, you think the only large scale terrorist attacks in the last 30 years have come from Muslims? How can you not know these events? Is the UK media the only place you get your information from? Tabloids trying to sell their front page? In the past 10 years, a grand total of 1 person has died as a result of Islamist extremism in the UK (Lee Rigby). How many Muslims have subject to abuse from hate crimes since the EU vote? Your fear is not proportional to the threat. If you want to be scared of something then make it climate change or automotive deaths or drinking alcohol or cancer, not a burqa.

    Fatty foods, smoking, sugary drinks, dangerous products all cost the NHS lots of money to deal with the damage they cause, that's why they're taxed or banned. Banning a burqa has no such reason. You don't have a clue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I agree with you.
    I don't like seeing women wear it but at the end of the day I value personal liberty highly. I'd focus on trying to assimilate and educate Muslim women to the point that they don't feel they need to hide away rather than simply banning them from wearing it.

    Prevention is better than cure.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are right, in an ideal world education would suffice. But even education is slow to have effect when men still have all the power in their communities and the social norms are so ingrained. For example, Nadiya Hussain.. lovely British born muslim, warm personality...

    The program the other day on her going back to Bangladesh revealed the true nature behind the lefts poster girl for Islam. She readily admitted she had never travelled anywhere alone, "If i get on the train, my husband takes me there and a male family member is at the other end" - We are not even talking about some newly arrived Bangladeshi, a 31 year old mother born and raised in Luton

    She also explained how her father was adamant and taught her to be a good cook for her future husband.

    Culture trumping education
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    I agree with everything you've written 100%. In principle I would support a ban (definitely in places in need of high security, such as airports or banks) and because it's a symbol of oppression, but at the same time I struggle with the fact that it's breaching basic liberty to wear what you like. Whilst I'm sure many women have no choice in the matter, I'm sure some out there probably do actually choose to wear it (sad, but no less a choice) so it's a difficult one. I think if it came down to it I probably would be in favour of banning it, but tentatively due to these reservations.
    The burqa is not a symbol of oppression. It is similar to the nun’s outfit, or the Pope’s. Women wear it BECAUSE they choose to wear it. Many of my acquaintances choose not to wear a hijab, and their parents respect that. The burqa is not a symbol of oppression and it never will be unless society chooses to label it as one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I, for one, hope that one day it is banned completely.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I found this interesting. Not sure where I stand on it. It should obviously be banned in airports and other places where it is absolutely necessary to see people's faces for security reasons, but I worry banning it in all public places could help open the doors to a surveillance culture where people must always have their faces on show. I certainly sympathise with the sentiments behind banning face-covering Islamic veils though, Islam should not be welcomed in this country. But I think I favour liberty. Politicians and the BBC stopping with the fawning platitudes about Islam would be a better option, as would banning faith schools, which would be the best option.
    http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-e...urqa-ban-poll/
    The Electoral Reform Society has just commented on the poor quality of the Brexit debate and in a sense here we go again.

    People are being asked for what amounts to an emotional response to a complex question.

    People are happy to ban things they don't like in the hope that what they don't like will simply disappear from their consciousness and it will not have any other consequences.

    If we ban burquas that doesn't burquas will vanish, it means women will be arrested in the streets for what they wear. It means women will be arrested for wearing clothes that are functionally equivalent to burqas like nuns' habits.

    It means that people with other agendas about restricting what people wear will see that the principle of the state having the right to regulate what people wear has been conceded to a far greater degree than accepted at present.

    That may all nonetheless be justified in the way that the battle was fought to make motorcycle helmets compulsory, but the people participating in polls such as this aren't weighing up pros and cons. They are simple unaware of the issues involved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShariYeah!)
    With all due respect kuffar live like cattle
    mooooo

    but thanks for showing what some muslims think of us
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    that are functionally equivalent to burqas like nuns' habits.
    Not true. A nuns outfit relates to her profession of being a nun this is not the case for muslim women who wear a burka.

    It is more akin to a police uniform while the burka is a fashion choice.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I actually know a few Muslims that are against the burqa and say it isn't part of Islam.
    I don't know how I feel on this stance. As long as the women aren't forced to wear it then I honestly don't see a problem, at all. It's a clothing and if they want to wear it then they should but as a whole I don't like what the burqa represents.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't want a ban but also don't want this normalised or protected

    It is after all a fashion choice and nothing more.

    So if they decide to cover their face and people ignore them because of it then that's OK. If a shop decides it doesn't want anyone covering their face on the premises then that's OK. If a security guard asked for them to be removed then that's OK. If the bus drives asked for them to show their face so he can match them to their card than that's OK. No special privilege so no more 'I will show my face in front of a female in a private room for example (something we challenged at my work due to sexual discrimination laws and won)

    But the important thing here is if your fashion choice makes you unemployable or unable to contribute to society then society should not have to foot the bill for this choice (why should I have to conform to social norms and contribute to those who stick two fingers up the society that expect to support, feed and home them.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    No, people shouldn't be able to dress like they want. There should be boundaries.
    Otherwise, you could allow that sort of shirt:





    No, Catholic nuns are not laywomen, they are professionals and their dress is a kind of uniform.
    I would go as far as to say to say people should be allowed to even wear the shirt you've shown. Sure some may find that shirt offensive, I don't particularly like it, but if you don't like it just ignore the people who are wearing it, simple. Banning that shirt would be a form of censorship. Should there be boundaries? Yeah, but only very few, for example banning shirts with pictures of say child pornography on them (obviously!!!) and anything similar, but beyond that nothing should be banned. If you believe in more boundaries than that then you would seem to me as an authoritarian.

    Also, since nuns are as you say professionals they should be allowed to wear their dress but Muslim women can't wear their dress? That sounds like weak reasoning to me. Or is that not what you're saying?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.