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

UKIP want to ban the Niqaab and Burkha:Is this an example of Islamophobia? Watch

    Offline

    0
    (Original post by crazylemon)
    I don't think I called islam a race...

    I agree people can choose whether or not to be tolerant of view with only caveat being government, as you have no choice but to use their services as the sole provider.

    You didn't. Others did though.


    And yeah agreed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    I think it's somewhat justified....thus why i'm not bothered either way.


    Civil servants for example shouldn't be allowed any religious paraphanaelia. Government ought to be secular.
    Hmm. I don't think so if the paraphernalia does not interfere with work, lack of paraphernalia is not going to stop you being influenced by religion anyway. The system has to be secular but not necessarily the people working for it, unless you can give good reason?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazylemon)
    Why should anyone be banned form having their face covered or being openly homophobic or sexist? Religion or not.
    'Because I don't like it' is not a good enough answer.
    Oh believe me, it's not because 'I don't like it'

    If I had my way all this rubbish about 'Oh, he said something that offended me' or 'They said we look funny' would be gone.

    It would be a culture of man up and stop complaining and get on with it.

    But as it is, any minority, or even majority can get away with anything citing religius reasons, or culural reasons or even just opinions. And it is all A grad B******t.

    The only way to stop the constant complaining of discrimination and counter arguments of this that and the other that go on fo ever and case hatred within communities is to stop all of it, with clear defined law. Something we currently don't have.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Media student)
    IF you are going to "ban" women from covering their whole body, then I expect the same for women who wear miniskirts and minitops, because I find that offensive and tempting

    Also am going to start a "ban rampage" just let me think of more things we could ban too!
    if you find it "tempting" to rape women or do whatever to them because they wear short skirts it is you who has the problem
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Rights Smights, you would probably be stopped by the police for acting suspiciously and you would certainly be asked to remove it inside banks and shops.

    So should women with the Burkah. But that doesn't mean it should be banned.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    You didn't. Others did though.


    And yeah agreed.
    Glad on that Was slightly confused about the race bit :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fireph)
    So you think its a choice to cover up - fine- its a choice of the buildings owners to not allow it- if the wearer dosnt agree to this, they dont go in.
    And as you said, its a choice, not a requirement- so no religious argument.
    I don't think anyone will have any problem with that, because businesses would let them wear it(large businesses anyway) they wouldn't want to lose customer however to make it a law banning any use of burkha is stupid
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fireph)
    its a choice of the buildings owners to not allow it- if the wearer dosnt agree to this, they dont go in.
    I agree with you - however, here's the problem.

    If I said that "from now on, no black people are allowed in my house", I'd be accused of racism. But it's my choice to allow whom I want into my house, isn't it?

    Similarly, of course it's a building-owner's choice to allow whomever they want into their building. But those building owners who refuse entry to Burka-wearing women probably have some irrational prejudice against them.

    And as you said, its a choice, not a requirement- so no religious argument.
    I didn't say it wasn't a requirement. Something can be a choice and a requirement.

    For example, it is a religious requirement not to drink alcohol. If someone chooses to be a Muslim, they are choosing not to drink alcohol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    religion is not the same as race. No matter how much you want to believe it, it just isnt.
    Like I said in my post

    muslims like using the racism card because that way they dont have to take responsibility for people disliking them:
    What responsive is that?

    If a group is disliked because of their skin colour ....they are victims.

    If a group is disliked for their beliefs...they have to start actually defending those beliefs.
    It's still racism, you say the same things to a Jew, you're a racist, you say the same thing to any other minority, you're a racist.


    You know damn well that islam is not a race, stop playing the victim.
    No victims never are victims to racists, are they......
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Oh believe me, it's not because 'I don't like it'

    If I had my way all this rubbish about 'Oh, he said something that offended me' or 'They said we look funny' would be gone.

    It would be a culture of man up and stop complaining and get on with it.

    But as it is, any minority, or even majority can get away with anything citing religius reasons, or culural reasons or even just opinions. And it is all A grad B******t.

    The only way to stop the constant complaining of discrimination and counter arguments of this that and the other that go on fo ever and case hatred within communities is to stop all of it, with clear defined law. Something we currently don't have.
    I don't get what you are saying, you ban discriminations by banning the thing which is offending. If people found black or white people offensive you should ban them?

    My point is there should be no need to cite religion as an excuse. They want to wear it so let them ******* wear it who cares why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I think the UKIP has a perfectly valid argument.

    And not just for security purposes, why should your religion give you any special liberties.
    I don't understand how simply wearing what you choose is categorised as a 'special liberty'
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well no, I'm not suggesting banks should be forced to accomodate for the identification of Burka-wearers. It's their building, they can kick out whoever they like.
    There just doesn't seem to be a need for that, when a female member of staff asking a woman to remove her Burka seems to be a much more trouble-free option.

    Afaik under current law theyll get done for discrimination if they kick her out. Not to mention the riots that would exist...so yes....they are being forced to accomodate.


    As I said before, I'd say it's much easier to just get women to take their Burka off in private, rather than putting up with the lack of identification, or banning the Burka.

    That way, everyone wins. The womn gets identified, but still gets to wear her Burka.
    Estimate for me how much time would be wasted in a year by every woman in a burka being taken aside and asked to remove it?:rolleyes:

    Now turn that in to aprox. wages wasted on something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place and only is because of an outdated concept?

    Like I said, I agree - but I'm just saying that being accomomdating doesn't seem difficult at all.

    It's not....but it ought to be a choice though

    Cutting yourself and carrying weapons causes problems for practicality, that are quite difficult to solve.

    The identification problem with Burkas can be solved easily. Of course, a bank shouldn't be forced to solve the problem - but the point is that the problem is so easily solved, that one might suspect a bank of prejudice if they kick out a Burka-wearing woman, rather than purely being concerned with identification issues.

    How is the practicality so different?

    As for the bank...like I said....think about it in real world time is money terms.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    It's still racism, you say the same things to a Jew, you're a racist, you say the same thing to any other minority, you're a racist.

    No victims never are victims to racists, are they......
    look, jews are an ethnicity, MUSLIMS ARE NOT. its that simple. the definition of ethnicity is a group that comes from a small region and are genetically similar, muslims arent this. stop degrading the word because you feel like playing the victim.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree with you - however, here's the problem.

    If I said that "from now on, no black people are allowed in my house", I'd be accused of racism. But it's my choice to allow whom I want into my house, isn't it?

    Similarly, of course it's a building-owner's choice to allow whomever they want into their building. But those building owners who refuse entry to Burka-wearing women probably have some irrational prejudice against them.



    I didn't say it wasn't a requirement. Something can be a choice and a requirement.

    For example, it is a religious requirement not to drink alcohol. If someone chooses to be a Muslim, they are choosing not to drink alcohol.
    You should be able to say 'no black people' on entry to your house, you are racist but it is your property so do whatever the **** you want with it. Ban postmen and all people called clive who are 5'8 from your property if you want.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Like I said in my post



    What responsive is that?



    It's still racism, you say the same things to a Jew, you're a racist, you say the same thing to any other minority, you're a racist.




    No victims never are victims to racists, are they......
    people like you give muslims a bad name. do you know that?

    say what you want, then stick by it even when you are clearly wrong.



    for the last time:

    ISLAM IS NOT A ******* RACE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But as it is, any minority, or even majority can get away with anything citing religius reasons, or culural reasons or even just opinions. And it is all A grad B******t.

    Agreed. In some religions old men can use belief to justify cutting off a babies foreskin and sucking the blood out with his mouth. :dontknow: Thats pretty ****** up.

    We need to bring religion within the perameters of the law. A women should be able to choose what she wants to wear. If she is being forced then we as a society should be doing our best to raise confidence in Muslim women that they are not living in Suadi. That they can appraoch the government or the police and receive help. Not be constantly bullied into living in the shade.

    What we shouldn't do is sacrifice our freedoms with kneejerk reactions, like banning an item of clothing. As if that will solve anything. It will just drive those opressed women indoors and into seclusion. And what of those women who choose to wear the veil? What of their rights?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    look, jews are an ethnicity, MUSLIMS ARE NOT. its that simple. the definition of ethnicity is a group that comes from a small region and are genetically similar, muslims arent this. stop degrading the word because you feel like playing the victim.
    Jews do not share a common ancestry or biological distinction
    http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...eingjewish.htm
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by crazylemon)
    Glad on that Was slightly confused about the race bit :p:


    hahaha, yeah


    Idk, it bothers me that everyone kicks up a fuss over the supposedly 'secular' burka and niqaab but when they go to the carribean and they're told they aren't allowed camouflage everyone is ok with it.


    People keep saying how the religion doesn't force the burka or niqaab....fine... in that case they're subject to the same as a motorcycle helmet or balaclava would be.

    or, in the case of some countries they're subject to the same that camouflage is in the carribean.


    TSR is a bt too hippocritical for my liking.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    ... and there was me thinking that UKIP were merely moderate Conservatives with scepticism of European integration only. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Jews do not share a common ancestry or biological distinction
    http://judaism.about.com/od/abcsofju...eingjewish.htm


    Um....

    You forget about the whole actual 'jewishness' being technically only passed down through the mother, don't you?
 
 
 
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: January 19, 2010
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.