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

Uk Has Less Progressive Laws Than Morocco After It Bans The Burqa Watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    Some women are being forced to wear it, others are not, it's only when it comes to Muslims we have hordes of angry White teenagers eager to um, help out Muslim women with an arbitrary and heavy handed ban which will harm as many people as it helps. It's almost as if the well-being of Muslim women is not the first priority here.
    Personally I want us to become a society where people don't want to wear a Burqa but a heavy handed, arbitrary ban doesn't solve the problem and actually punishes the wrong people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Okay let's put it this way. If women are being forced to wear it, then your proposal of making it illegal will punish them.

    In other words, you want to punish women who are being forced to wear something...

    Far better is to educate them so they don't want to wear it, rather that punishing the ones who you believe are forced to wear it.
    Hold on, you've gone from:

    Polls have time and time again shown that Muslim women want to wear it.
    (no link to these polls though)

    To

    If women are being forced to wear it .

    Can you please make your mind up.

    Basically you're happy to facilitate the abuse and subjugation of some Muslim women by some Muslim men.

    Seriously, is an opportunity to signal your virtue worth the price paid by these women?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Hold on, you've gone from:

    Polls have time and time again shown that Muslim women want to wear it.
    (no link to these polls though)

    To

    If women are being forced to wear it .

    Can you please make your mind up.

    Basically you're happy to facilitate the abuse and subjugation of some Muslim women by some Muslim men.

    Seriously, is an opportunity to signal your virtue worth the price paid by these women?
    No. I have said that Muslims women by and large want to wear it.

    There will be some who are forced to or pressurised into it.

    However making it ilegal just stops the women who want to wear it from having free choice and it punishes the women who are being forced to wear it.

    No, i'm not happy to facilitate abuse. but if these women ARE being forced to wear it, then making it illegal punishes the victim...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Numan786)
    Islam doesn't tell them to wear a burqa and yes some may be forced but I know some who I've begged not to wear in public because they'll get bigoted idiots like you guys attacking them because you believe they're being forced to wear them. I mean how does that even work? "herp derp those women are being forced to wear the burqa, lemme abuse them to show them my support and let them know we in the west are tolerant unlike Islamic country X".

    I personally believe they should be banned in hospitals, airports and high security areas. However, bigots who want to ban a piece of clothing because they feel threatened and blatantly lie that they're worried about those poor muslim women and then go on to abuse them infuriate me.

    Calling people bigots is not an argument.Islam is just a set of ideas that deserves no more privlege than any other idealogy.It's an ideology filled with sexism,homophobia and anti-Semitism.A true liberal would oppose such values rather than give such practices a free pass just because it's a religious practice.Even if they are not coerced to wear them in the west,they most definitely are in countries around the world.As such it should be banned.It's a symbol of oppression.If it were white people forcing others to cover up then you would probably be the first to complain about it but because it's brown people you say oh it's fine it's just their culture.Guess what that makes you a racist.Its the racism of lower expectations.You are not holding muslims to the same standards as everybody else and giving sexism a free pass.When you become tolerant of intolerance that makes you yourself intolerant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    Does your libertarian stance on clothing extend to the Swastika?
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    How about a t-shirt with one of these messages?

    All gays should be castrated!

    Kill the blacks!

    Shoot Jeremy Corbyn now!

    Deport all Moslems!

    Fry a lesbian!

    Hitler was right! Gas the Jews!
    Well, these aren't strictly garments, but messages and symbols on garments. Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

    If it were up to me, go ahead and wear an SS uniform with "kill the gays" written on it. Just don't expect to get served anywhere.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    . but if these women ARE being forced to wear it, then making it illegal punishes the victim...
    Hmm. All murder victims are forced to die. By your convoluted logic our making murder illegal punishes those victims too.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    The tube? Are you referencing 7/7? Help me out here.
    The recently 2016 placed a bag with wires on a random tube train to see if it was detected/reported and it wasn't
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Hmm. All murder victims are forced to die. By your convoluted logic our making murder illegal punishes those victims too.
    Are you an idiot?

    If someone is murdered then the person who murdered them is punished.

    If you make wearing the Burqa illegal then you must punish the person who is allegedly being forced to wear it...

    Congratulations though. You've come out with the two most stupid posts I've seen in a long time. That Jewish people wouldn't be offended by someone wearing a Swastika and that opposing banning the Burqa is equivalent as wanting to legalise murder...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Well, these aren't strictly garments, but messages and symbols on garments. Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

    If it were up to me, go ahead and wear an SS uniform with "kill the gays" written on it. Just don't expect to get served anywhere.
    For once we are in full agreement.

    People have a right not to be harassed or physically or verbally abused, but they should not have a right not to be offended.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If you make wearing the Burqa illegal then you must punish the person who is allegedly being forced to wear it...
    I was merely illustrating where your odd logic takes you as you don't seem to be thinking it through, perhaps because you are too keen to move on to gratuitous personal insults.

    We don't refrain from making the crossing of national borders without proper process and documentation illegal on the grounds it would punish trafficking victims, do we?

    If you make wearing the full veil illegal then most potential wearers will comply with the law. Islam, after all, tells Moslems to comply with local laws.

    You would also have a mechanism for punishing those that cause the offence to be committed by forcing women to wear them, if there was evidence that families were doing that, and those coerced into breaking the law would have a defence to the charge. Coerced women would not, therefore, be punished for wearing the full veil.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.
    Incitement to a crime (which most of those message are) is illegal because it does occasionally work. The man on the Clapham omnibus, being a reasonable person, isn't susceptible but others certainly are.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    Adding to a list that includes Malaysia and Tunisia. Yet here we are, tolerating women in this country are being put in bags. We can pat ourselves on the back all we like for showing tolerance to intolerance, but women in this country are suffering.

    Let's be clear, the burqa is not Islamic, let alone cultural to Muslim majority countries. So let's not cowardly hide behind the moral inconsistencies of multi-culturalism and have a truly progressive multi-ethnic society.

    http://thesatedire.com/features/isla...-week-morocco/
    False acc. The bans in Malaysia and Tunisia were for civil servants only (teachers mostly). Essentially people directly employed by government, and didn't apply to private citizens, although in Tunisia they tried to pass niqab as being a security risk and said they would stop and check people wearing them more. Don't know if that ever actually happened.

    It's worth pointing out that Tunisia used to have a rabidly secular leadership. The same dude who banned hair coverings for women years ago, also banned beards.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I was merely illustrating where your odd logic takes you as you don't seem to be thinking it through, perhaps because you are too keen to move on to gratuitous personal insults.

    We don't refrain from making the crossing of national borders without proper process and documentation illegal on the grounds it would punish trafficking victims, do we?

    If you make wearing the full veil illegal then most potential wearers will comply with the law. Islam, after all, tells Moslems to comply with local laws.

    You would also have a mechanism for punishing those that cause the offence to be committed by forcing women to wear them, if there was evidence that families were doing that, and those coerced into breaking the law would have a defence to the charge. Coerced women would not, therefore, be punished for wearing the full veil.
    Basic logic has failed you, incredibly.
    Again, go into a synagogue wearing any form of the swastika and find or whether people would be offended...

    As for comparing murder to the Burqa, that's pure stupidity.

    For a start many women want to wear the Burqa and that's their choice. I don't like it but people should have the freedom to wear what they like.

    With regards to women being forced to wear it, how on earth do you prove that? What does 'forced' mean? That they are threatened or abused if they don't or just that they feel societal or familial pressure to wear it?

    So if you make it illegal how do you decide who to punish?

    It's the most absurd idea.

    It's funny that as a conservative, you seem to want an authoritarian state telling people what they can and can't wear.

    Again, the best way to deal with it is to make them to not want to wear it, banning it achieves nothing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So if you make it illegal how do you decide who to punish?
    Let's be radical, shall, we, and let the magistrates and juries decide the individual cases on the basis of the facts of each individual case?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Let's be radical, shall, we, and let the magistrates and juries decide the individual cases on the basis of the facts of each individual case?
    Right so every time someone wears a Burqa we waste huge amounts of taxpayer money to take them to court?

    What an absurd idea. Personally I quite like the idea of people being allowed to choose what they wear.

    You sound like a SJW in arguing that everyone has a right to not be offended.

    Quite why you want a huge, over imposing state dictating to its citizens what it can and can't wear, I don't know.

    Are you still maintaining that Jewish people wouldn't be offended if you wore a Swastika?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Right so every time someone wears a Burqa we waste huge amounts of taxpayer money to take them to court?

    What an absurd idea. Personally I quite like the idea of people being allowed to choose what they wear.

    You sound like a SJW in arguing that everyone has a right to not be offended.

    Quite why you want a huge, over imposing state dictating to its citizens what it can and can't wear, I don't know.

    Are you still maintaining that Jewish people wouldn't be offended if you wore a Swastika?
    You seem to miss the fact that I haven't actually argued that wearing the full face veil should be illegal. I am, in fact, undecided on the issue. I was acting as devil's advocate and pointing out the benefits and some attributes of such a policy, advocated by others.

    I am fairly liberal when it comes to such things but can see a strong public interest in proper integration and a secular state, with no religious symbols allowed at all in public life, which allows people to do as they will in private but to keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

    I would personally repeal the laws pertaining to hate speech, though I would keep all incitement to crime, especially violence, illegal. Giving offence should not be criminal, for any reason. Castigating people for wearing Nazi fancy dress or exotic native costume is ridiculous.

    I have no doubt that some or even most Jews would be offended if I wore a swastika in a synagogue as they are just as ignorant of what it means as you. I also have little doubt that there are Buddhists, Thais or Sikhs in Britain who regularly wear or carry items with swastikas on them, unnoticed by you. Not the Nazi rotated swastika, though.

    There are many Jews who regularly visit public buildings adorned with them without taking offence.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Well, these aren't strictly garments, but messages and symbols on garments. Even so, I'm not convinced that these would cause people any actual harm.

    If it were up to me, go ahead and wear an SS uniform with "kill the gays" written on it. Just don't expect to get served anywhere.
    That's nice of you. PC plod would be more likely to be paying you a visit as you would most likely be committing an offence under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You seem to miss the fact that I haven't actually argued that wearing the full face veil should be illegal. I am, in fact, undecided on the issue. I was acting as devil's advocate and pointing out the benefits and some attributes of such a policy, advocated by others.

    I am fairly liberal when it comes to such things but can see a strong public interest in proper integration and a secular state, with no religious symbols allowed at all in public life, which allows people to do as they will in private but to keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

    I would personally repeal the laws pertaining to hate speech, though I would keep all incitement to crime, especially violence, illegal. Giving offence should not be criminal, for any reason. Castigating people for wearing Nazi fancy dress or exotic native costume is ridiculous.

    I have no doubt that some or even most Jews would be offended if I wore a swastika in a synagogue as they are just as ignorant of what it means as you. I also have little doubt that there are Buddhists, Thais or Sikhs in Britain who regularly wear or carry items with swastikas on them, unnoticed by you. Not the Nazi rotated swastika, though.

    There are many Jews who regularly visit public buildings adorned with them without taking offence.
    'Playing devil's advocate', ah the usual defence to acting as a pillock.

    Being offended by the Swastika does not mean Jewish people are ignorant. Whatever the Swastika's history and origin it is unquestionably now associated with the Nazi regime and to argue otherwise is frankly absurd.

    As for saying Jewish people attend museums with them, well do course because the swastika there is used as a matter of historical fact about the Nazi regime. It is not a declaration of support for the Nazi regime, as it would be if a regular person were to wear it.

    Nonetheless people shouldn't be banned from wearing it or anything else. If they wore it they probably wouldn't be served in a lot of places and very few people would associate with them. That's far better than simply imposing an arbitrary ban.

    I don't like the Burqa, not at all. But you shouldn't take away people's freedom about what they are allowed to do with their own body.

    It's neither liberal nor progressive to ban items of clothing.

    I also find it funny how a bunch of right wing guys on the internet suddenly claim to really care about these poor Muslim women 'forced to wear it'. (No evidence is provided mind)

    Even if some are forced to, then making it illegal punishes the victim as well as taking away the free choice of women who actually do want to wear it.

    You criticise SJW but you are doing exactly the same as them 'this offends me so I think it should be banned'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    'Playing devil's advocate', ah the usual defence to acting as a pillock.
    Back with the gratuitous personal insults. eh? It always makes the discussion worthwhile, doesn't it?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    As for saying Jewish people attend museums with them, well do course because the swastika there is used as a matter of historical fact about the Nazi regime. It is not a declaration of support for the Nazi regime, as it would be if a regular person were to wear it.
    I never mentioned museums, and wasn't referring to them. Obviously museums commonly hold them in their collections.

    I was referring to municipal buildings like council offices and town halls, though there are plenty of banks, for instance, that carry them as part of their decoration (either inside or outside), as well as the Indian High Commission.

    Examples are Burlington House (HQ of the Royal Academy of Arts) in London, the Essex County Council HQ, many churches and cathedrals, including a church I know personally in Wiltshire, NatWest Bank in Bolton, the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, Upminster Bridge tube station, even Balmoral Castle's war memorial. The FCO in Whitehall has them too.

    None of them are declaring support for the Nazis by openly displaying the symbol, and Jews do not appear to take offence when using them. I suspect they are able to differentiate the use of an ancient good luck charm from a politicized and changed symbol used for a short period, or worn by Nazi sympathisers out to cause a stir.

    Occasionally, SJWs complain about them in their ignorance and are quite rightly sent packing with a flea in their ear by the building owners.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You criticise SJW but you are doing exactly the same as them 'this offends me so I think it should be banned'.
    What do you think I have said offends me? I can't think of anything.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.