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

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Back with the gratuitous personal insults. eh? It always makes the discussion worthwhile, doesn't 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.
    Clearly the point was about someone wearing a Nazi swastika. Given that the argument was that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, no matter how offensive, including a Swastika.

    Why you've gone off on a tangent, I don't know.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    What do you think I have said offends me? I can't think of anything.
    By arguing that they should be banned and then comparing it to wearing clothing with Racist and homophobic slogans on.

    Banning clothing is about as illeberal as it gets.
    Then you compared allowing people to wear a Burqa to legalising murder which was quite something, even for you.

    I'm still yet to see anything approaching a convincing justification for banning them. Most of the time it's 'I don't like them'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    By arguing that they should be banned and then comparing it to wearing clothing with Racist and homophobic slogans on.

    Banning clothing is about as illeberal as it gets.
    Then you compared allowing people to wear a Burqa to legalising murder which was quite something, even for you.
    You obviously have some difficulty understanding plain English. I didn't compare people wearing a burkha to people being murdered. I was rather pointing out a flaw in your logic by drawing attention to the results of following your logic in not making crimes that have victims illegal.

    My point about slogans was a direct response to a poster who said no clothing should ever be banned. I gave him some examples that might change his mind (and he did).

    As I have already said, I have not advocated making the full veil illegal.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You obviously have some difficulty understanding plain English. I didn't compare people wearing a burkha to people being murdered. I was rather pointing out a flaw in your logic by drawing attention to the results of following your logic in not making crimes that have victims illegal.
    Your point was illogical. Entirely.
    In the case of murder, it would always be the one who committed the killing that would be punished.

    If you class wearing the Burqa as wrong but also argue that women are being forced to wear it, then by making it illegal you would be punishing the victim....


    Quite how you've tried to compare it in any way to legalising murder defies belief and basic logic.

    My point about slogans was a direct response to a poster who said no clothing should ever be banned. I gave him some examples that might change his mind (and he did).

    As I have already said, I have not advocated making the full veil illegal.
    No clothing should ever be banned... including all your examples.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The swastika, in its unrotated form, is neither a symbol of anti-semitism nor of hatred, but of good luck. You will find it in temples in Korea and India, commonly on Buddhist, Jainist, American Indian and Hindu artifacts, in British banks, on the outside of the India High Commission's building in Aldwych, London and plenty of other public buildings in Britain, including municipal buildings, None of these sympathisse with the nazis or their doctrines.

    Carlsberg used it as their logo and there is still one to be found on its Danish HQ.

    The Theosophical Society uses it on its seal, and even the British druids used it.
    I know, this is brought up everytime the swastika is mentioned. What has that to do with this discussion?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    The recently 2016 placed a bag with wires on a random tube train to see if it was detected/reported and it wasn't
    OK then. That really furthered the discourse. Thanks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    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.
    It did happen and is well documented. The original ban was in 1981 but has been extended in recent years, with varying degrees of success.

    Malaysia has a modesty police, yet still has enforced some form of control over face coverings, although you are right regarding private citizens. The larger point still stands, if Islamic countries can ban, either outright or within certain institutions, then it is not Islamophobic to do the same here.

    I admit there is much to discuss and plenty of grey area, but we can't have that discussion until the **** flingers move out of the way.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    It did happen and is well documented. The original ban was in 1981 but has been extended in recent years, with varying degrees of success.

    Malaysia has a modesty police, yet still has enforced some form of control over face coverings, although you are right regarding private citizens. The larger point still stands, if Islamic countries can ban, either outright or within certain institutions, then it is not Islamophobic to do the same here.

    I admit there is much to discuss and plenty of grey area, but we can't have that discussion until the **** flingers move out of the way.
    It's not that banning it would be Islamaphobic, it's that banning it would be illiberal.

    I don't like it, but an arbitrary ban won't solve the problem. I want people not to wear it because they don't want to, not because it's illegal.

    As it stands though, they do want to wear it and that should be their choice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's not that banning it would be Islamaphobic, it's that banning it would be illiberal.

    I don't like it, but an arbitrary ban won't solve the problem. I want people not to wear it because they don't want to, not because it's illegal.

    As it stands though, they do want to wear it and that should be their choice.
    You may not be calling it Islamophobic or, as I often here, an act of imperialism, but many do.

    I disagree with your conclusion but I can't say entirely. It's something I've been on both sides of and never quite at ease either way.

    I do loathe the normalising of it though, that is unacceptable to me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    You may not be calling it Islamophobic or, as I often here, an act of imperialism, but many do.

    I disagree with your conclusion but I can't say entirely. It's something I've been on both sides of and never quite at ease either way.

    I do loathe the normalising of it though, that is unacceptable to me.
    I used to be in favour of banning it but i'm not anymore.

    I don't like it and don't think it should be normalised but I feel that it's the wrong way to deal with it. It simply papers over the cracks. It won't stop women who are being forced to wear it - they'd still be forced to in the house. It will also punish women who want to wear it.

    If a woman wants to wear it, who am I to tell her she can't? I want her to make that decision herself. I want her to become educated and realise the absurdity of it.

    I think it's a slippery slope when the government starts telling us what we can and cannot wear.

    Integration cannot be achieved by banning things. It can only be achieved by showing them that our more liberal way is better than covering yourself up to extreme levels.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.