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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I don't agree with them wearing what they're wearing but I will defend their right to wear it.
    It's coming across as more of a defence of the veil than a pure defence of personal freedom, but fair enough if you've clarified your position.

    If people want to wear KKK outfits so long as they are not actively being racist then it is fine with me.
    But why? Because of some non-existent notion that we should be free to wear what we want, that pretty much no society has ever allowed?

    I see it as a balancing act:

    Someone wears a KKK outfit on a busy high street everyday as part of their apparent freedom to wear what they want.
    vs.
    An ethnic minority having to walk past that everyday to work and feeling intimidated, singled out and possibly even unsafe. It also sows division and acts against what we want our society to represent.

    I think the latter outweighs the former.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    As I have explained earlier in this debate, I do not feel that those who wear the burqa or the niqab in public have successfully assimilated into British society, as they are cultural items and not religious items.
    So you want to punish them by making the act of wearing one illegal?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    It's coming across as more of a defence of the veil than a pure defence of personal freedom, but fair enough if you've clarified your position.
    Well it isn't intended to be.


    But why? Because of some non-existent notion that we should be free to wear what we want, that pretty much no society has ever allowed?

    I see it as a balancing act:

    Someone wears a KKK outfit on a busy high street everyday as part of their apparent freedom to wear what they want.
    vs.
    An ethnic minority having to walk past that everyday to work and feeling intimidated, singled out and possibly even unsafe. It also sows division and acts against what we want our society to represent.

    I think the latter outweighs the former.
    Whilst, the notion has never been adopted but it is one which I wholeheartedly support.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    United1892 has given you the names. Now, please do not accuse me of contradicting myself if I have not done so.
    OoooOOOooo

    Still doesn't show how naive you are that you don't realise a closeted attempt by bigots at making a law which targets a specific group because of their religious beliefs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    OoooOOOooo



    Still doesn't show how naive you are that you don't realise a closeted attempt by bigots at making a law which targets a specific group because of their religious beliefs.
    For your information, I wrote this bill. Apparently, you have not figured it out, even when I have been the main commenter defending this bill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    I propose an amendment to 2(2) - that a clause 'g' is to be added stating 'for religious purposes'.
    Burkas aren't religious, they're cultural, and whether the wearer thinks it or not they are inherently misogynistic.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    For your information, I wrote this bill. Apparently, you have not figured it out, even when I have been the main commenter defending this bill.
    Clearly, since I'm not really interested, nor do I want to read the whole thread. Good attempt at a first bill though.

    Still nay since it will infringe civil liberties.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Burkas aren't religious, they're cultural, and whether the wearer thinks it or not they are inherently misogynistic.
    What everyone is really talking about is actually a niqab, and they're part of the religion of Islam, which makes up a significant part of the Arab culture.

    So yes, but no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    What everyone is really talking about is actually a niqab, and they're part of the religion of Islam, which makes up a significant part of the Arab culture.

    So yes, but no.
    That being said, there is much debate about whether it is required under Islamic Law, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it's misogynistic.

    At the end of the day, if I can't wear a balaclava in a bank, then they shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Still doesn't show how naive you are that you don't realise a closeted attempt by bigots at making a law which targets a specific group because of their religious beliefs.
    Should the government avoid extending Sunday trading hours because such a law 'targets a specific group because of their religious beliefs'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Clearly, since I'm not really interested, nor do I want to read the whole thread. Good attempt at a first bill though.

    Still nay since it will infringe civil liberties.
    I know you are new here, but you should really stop using all these red herrings and you should stop making false premises as an MP. First, you have said that I was contradicting myself when I was not. Then, you attacked me by calling me naive. Now, you are saying that this is my first bill when it is obviously not. It is not even the my first bill of this term (see Prohibition of Public Intoxication Bill). How did you even come to the knowledge of whether this is my first bill or not?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    So you want to punish them by making the act of wearing one illegal?
    I want to punish people for posing a security threat by using face coverings.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I know you are new here, but you should really stop using all these red herrings and you should stop making false premises as an MP. First, you have said that I was contradicting myself when I was not. Then, you attacked me by calling me naive. Now, you are saying that this is my first bill when it is obviously not. It is not even the my first bill of this term (see Prohibition of Public Intoxication Bill). How did you even come to the knowledge of whether this is my first bill or not?
    I didn't know that you had made a bill before - if my observation of some mistakes led to a conclusion that you hadn't made one before was wrong, then I apologise, but if you made that prohibitive bill as well you might want to rethink these authoritarian views.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    The difference is: we do not follow those teachings where we have "barbaric" punishments anymore, while you get a sizable number of Muslims who follow Islam in its seventh century form.
    And the, by a mile, majority that follow it in it's 21st century form. Once again, your logic would allow us to discriminate against so many people it wouldn't even be called discrimination. We would be able to discriminate against the Christians because of the KKK, among others, the Athesists because of [insert group here] the Jews because of X, the animal rights crowd because of the radicals, the Greens because of the eco terrorists, UKIP because of the EDL members among them, the Britons as a whole for the exact same reason. The logic you apply, whereby it is perfectly okay to discriminate against a group because of a small number of them would be a suitable end to discrimination.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I want to punish people for posing a security threat by using face coverings.
    No you don't, the sole reason for this bill is you trying to discriminate against people for doing things you disagree with. It is the worst attempt to cover the real reasons for a bill that I could possibly imagine.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    I want to punish people for posing a security threat by using face coverings.
    And the people who aren't posing a threat?

    Franklin quote time: "Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Should the government avoid extending Sunday trading hours because such a law 'targets a specific group because of their religious beliefs'?
    No, they should avoid establishing laws like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is so obviously structured to enable discrimination against LGBT people that quotes from the Onion and the governor’s office are almost indistinguishable.

    And the Sunday thing wouldn't target any group - however something like preventing people from wearing crucifixes or other religious jewellery in public areas would be targeting a religious group.

    (Original post by Wellzi)
    That being said, there is much debate about whether it is required under Islamic Law, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it's misogynistic.

    At the end of the day, if I can't wear a balaclava in a bank, then they shouldn't be allowed to wear a niqab.
    You can't really compare an item of clothing which has barely any usage outside of religious group to an item of clothing which is used by the military, police forces, paramilitary groups and is inextricably linked with illegal activities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No, they should avoid establishing laws like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is so obviously structured to enable discrimination against LGBT people that quotes from the Onion and the governor’s office are almost indistinguishable.
    There is no suggestion that they are/will.

    And the Sunday thing wouldn't target any group - however something like preventing people from wearing crucifixes or other religious jewellery in public areas would be targeting a religious group.
    Yes it would. Many Christians would claim their religious beliefs are being undermined, or that they are being forced to work on Sundays.

    Also, what's wrong with laws that target a religious group? Should religious beliefs make you exempt from adhering to the law? Is every law that affects a certain religious group wrong or just this one?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Franklin quote time: "Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
    Wearing a face veil is not an 'essential liberty' by any established definition or precedent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And the, by a mile, majority that follow it in it's 21st century form. Once again, your logic would allow us to discriminate against so many people it wouldn't even be called discrimination. We would be able to discriminate against the Christians because of the KKK, among others, the Athesists because of [insert group here] the Jews because of X, the animal rights crowd because of the radicals, the Greens because of the eco terrorists, UKIP because of the EDL members among them, the Britons as a whole for the exact same reason. The logic you apply, whereby it is perfectly okay to discriminate against a group because of a small number of them would be a suitable end to discrimination.
    I am not discriminating against anyone. If you are talking about Muslims, I am not discriminating against them, as wearing a face covering us not required under Islam. I was only responding to another use when I explained the difference between extremist Muslims and the UK today, and I specifically targeting Islamic extremists is not the purpose of my bill.
 
 
 
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
Are you going to a festival?

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.