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

B882 - Face Coverings Prohibition Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If you get many people from a culture that teaches Islam in its seventh century form, and these people fail to assimilate, there may eventually be enough people who agree with Sharia law to make it seem acceptable. They do not need to spread out around the whole country. Instead, they only need to target areas like Tower Hamlets, Luton, or Bradford to get enough people to support Sharia law so that these places may end up having councils controlled by extreme-Islamists, not to mention that some Labour-run councils already turn a blind eye to people like this, so you end up with a situation like in Rotherham.

    Watch this if you want to get an idea of what I am talking about:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps
    You've got enough EDL in Rotherham to stop that though
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    You've got enough EDL in Rotherham to stop that though
    Well, they are pretty much dead, so they have been replaced by Britain First, but these extremist groups (the anti-Islamists and the Islamic extremists) do not help solve the problem, and I fear that these fights may radicalise moderates from both sides. The best way to deal with these problems is by democratic means, i.e. voting UKIP.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    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.
    So are you saying that people who hold views that are very different from yours should not be able to submit bills? Do you want to exclude a wide chunk of the population from democracy?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    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.
    As I have said, I am not trying to cover anything up. I am not discriminating against anybody, as this bill applies to everyone equally, and the main reason for my bill is for security, with the other reason being my opposition to what I perceive to be a barrier that prevents assimilation of people from another culture.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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"
    As I have said before, if a criminal uses a face covering, it is a lot more difficult to identify him/her after they have committed a crime, so I would rather ban face coverings if they potentially pose such a large threat. You never know which person using the face covering poses a threat and which one does not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    There is no suggestion that they are/will.
    Really? Then why is it that after the bill's signing, a restaurant owner called Ryan called Indianapolis radio to say that his Christian belief in "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" means he is now able to turn away same-sex couples.

    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    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?
    https://youtube/rAG1TqjJ0n0
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    So are you saying that people who hold views that are very different from yours should not be able to submit bills? Do you want to exclude a wide chunk of the population from democracy?
    No, I'm saying before submitting naive bills MPs should think clearly and assess whether they can be construed as bigoted and/or discriminatory.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No, I'm saying before submitting naive bills MPs should think clearly and assess whether they can be construed as bigoted and/or discriminatory.
    There are many people in this House who do not see this bill as discriminatory and/or bigoted. Of course, there are ultra-PC members who perceive everything to be discriminatory and/or bigoted, but they shall not prevent me from expressing my views and representing my voters as a Member of Parliament. I have every right to submit bills, and if I should censor myself from submitting controversial bills, what is the point of freedom of speech, as freedom of speech protects one's right to express their views. If people were not allowed to express controversial views, women would not have the vote, there would not be inter-racial marriages, and people of the same-sex would not be able to marry, as these were things that almost nobody was in favour of before they were legalised. Just think about it, before 1967, it was illegal to be homosexual in England and Wales, and it would have been outrageous back then to suggest that people of the same-sex should be able to marry, but now, it is legal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No, I'm saying before submitting naive bills MPs should think clearly and assess whether they can be construed as bigoted and/or discriminatory.
    Disagreeing with a bill does not make it bigoted, this bill has no bigotry about it, nor is it discriminatory towards anyone; the bill treats everyone equally by everyone have to abide by the same law. Discrimination is when there are different laws for different groups of people, or when one group of people can do something but another group cannot.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Disagreeing with a bill does not make it bigoted, this bill has no bigotry about it, nor is it discriminatory towards anyone; the bill treats everyone equally by everyone have to abide by the same law. Discrimination is when there are different laws for different groups of people, or one group of people can do one thing when another group cannot.
    So by that logic if a pass a law banning the eating of meat it is not discriminating because it affects everyone equally even though some people already don't eat meat so won't be affected?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So by that logic if a pass a law banning the eating of meat it is not discriminating because it affects everyone equally even though some people already don't eat meat so won't be affected?
    If the bill is voted yes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Umm, methinks Nay
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So by that logic if a pass a law banning the eating of meat it is not discriminating because it affects everyone equally even though some people already don't eat meat so won't be affected?
    Yes, the law would not be discriminatory but it would have lots of criticism from people who are meat eaters. There are discriminatory laws e.g. age discrimination for voting rights, age discrimination for marriage, age discrimination on driving, nationality discrimination on voting requirements, income discrimination on benefit allowances, and post code discrimination on school attendance, but most laws are not e.g. banning robbery does not discriminate against the people who want to rob, VAT does not discriminate against people who do or do not want to pay, and banning selling high-powered lasers does not discriminate against people who want to buy lasers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    If people were not allowed to express controversial views, women would not have the vote, there would not be inter-racial marriages, and people of the same-sex would not be able to marry, as these were things that almost nobody was in favour of before they were legalised. Just think about it, before 1967, it was illegal to be homosexual in England and Wales, and it would have been outrageous back then to suggest that people of the same-sex should be able to marry, but now, it is legal.
    Except the difference between those laws is that they were establishments of equality (left wing views) and the bill written here would do the opposite.
    If we're talking about really controversial views, I'm up for writing a bill to establish the independence of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and unite them as the Anglo-Celtic Republic?
    Who needs the EU?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Yes, the law would not be discriminatory but it would have lots of criticism from people who are meat eaters. There are discriminatory laws e.g. age discrimination for voting rights, age discrimination for marriage, age discrimination on driving, nationality discrimination on voting requirements, income discrimination on benefit allowances, and post code discrimination on school attendance, but most laws are not e.g. banning robbery does not discriminate against the people who want to rob, VAT does not discriminate against people who do or do not want to pay, and banning the selling high powered laser pointers does not discriminate against those who want to buy them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Except the difference between those laws is that they were establishments of equality (left wing views) and the bill written here would do the opposite.
    If we're talking about really controversial views, I'm up for writing a bill to establish the independence of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and unite them as the Anglo-Celtic Republic?
    Who needs the EU?
    This bill can also be supported by left-wingers. There were feminist groups who were in favour of the burqa ban in France when it was passed.
    Historically, the left was also against oppressive religions.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Josb)
    This bill can also be supported by left-wingers. There were feminist groups who were in favour of the burqa ban in France when it was passed.
    I'm not saying feminists are left wing: all left wings are feminists but not all feminists are left wing. I am simply saying that equality is a left wing ideal.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Yes, the law would not be discriminatory but it would have lots of criticism from people who are meat eaters. There are discriminatory laws e.g. age discrimination for voting rights, age discrimination for marriage, age discrimination on driving, nationality discrimination on voting requirements, income discrimination on benefit allowances, and post code discrimination on school attendance, but most laws are not e.g. banning robbery does not discriminate against the people who want to rob, VAT does not discriminate against people who do or do not want to pay, and banning the selling high powered laser pointers does not discriminate against those who want to buy them.
    But it would be infringing on the liberties of meat eaters and making them eat a diet they don't want to so it woudl be discriminatory. The point of laws against robbing banks is that it infringes on another's rights not to be stolen from. A person who has the right to wear what they want but not to see everyone's face (or to put it a different way make anyone they want remove their clothes) and the number of people who misuse the burqua are a tiny percentage. If you wanted to do something more productive and woudl cut down on such crime you should.

    1) requires some sort of 'barcode' to be visible on the burqua which identifies it uniquely.
    2) require all people once they reach the age of 18 to submit DNA to a government database.

    I could potentially support those measures but not thsi bill.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I'm not saying feminists are left wing: all left wings are feminists but not all feminists are left wing. I am simply saying that equality is a left wing ideal.
    I find it strange to see feminists condoning the burqa. I can't really think of a more oppressive outfit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm Abstaining

    I do not hold any extreme right wing views Nor am I'm I racist however I wonder how many of you have seen this ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg0GqRAxGwc ) I am a little concerned about what I just watched ( please watch its only 10 mins ) it is revelant in case your wondering
 
 
 
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
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed
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.