Saint in Paradise Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 Telling people what they can and cannot wear is something you expect from some backward middle eastern sh!t hole like Saudi Arabia. If people are offended by what muslims wear it is their ignorance that is the problem, not the clothes. What about UK motorcyclists being forced to wear crash helmets then ? What about UK Banks and many other places forcing people to remove items of clothing before entering said premises ? As for your statement about people being offended by what muslims wear well it is obvious you are not well travelled as if you had you would never have the nerve to say such a silly remark. Have to say that I 100% agree with every post Whitey has posted in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 One of the reasons that it was banned in Belgium was that it 'undermined' the mandatory identity card which has a picture on it! Clearly we don't have that here but passports, bus passes, work security cards etc.. come into this category so there are some potential issues ! Frankly, I feel that people who want to settle in this country should be prepared to make some sacrifices in exchange for the right to be here ! When I recently visited mosques in Istanbul, I was happy to remove my shoes and my wife was happy to cover her head and shoulders, we did this with due respect for their culture ! All I ask is that others treat us in the same way, surely this is not too much to expect ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 One of the reasons that it was banned in Belgium was that it 'undermined' the mandatory identity card which has a picture on it! Clearly we don't have that here but passports, bus passes, work security cards etc.. come into this category so there are some potential issues ! Frankly, I feel that people who want to settle in this country should be prepared to make some sacrifices in exchange for the right to be here ! When I recently visited mosques in Istanbul, I was happy to remove my shoes and my wife was happy to cover her head and shoulders, we did this with due respect for their culture ! All I ask is that others treat us in the same way, surely this is not too much to expect ?? I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 What about UK motorcyclists being forced to wear crash helmets then ? What about UK Banks and many other places forcing people to remove items of clothing before entering said premises ? As for your statement about people being offended by what muslims wear well it is obvious you are not well travelled as if you had you would never have the nerve to say such a silly remark. Have to say that I 100% agree with every post Whitey has posted in this thread. Obviously if there is security issues and a face needs to be seen it is different but i don't see a problem with veils in public places. i agree they look a bit spooky but comparing it to motorbike helmets shows how intolerant you are of other peoples religious beliefs. It's not hard to show a bit of understanding of other peoples cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 This is a difficult debate to have . Someone will always try to use the PC warrant card on you for just highlighting common sense . If someone goes to an exam wearing the burka etc how do we know who is actually sitting the exam . What if a doctor wore full burka hijab etc . Would you want them to exam you . Knowing you don't have a clue who the hidden person is . This clothing has been used by men to commit crimes . More recently to undertake a robbery at selfridges a couple of months ago . As for the court case I think who ever is hidden should be seen by the judge and jury . It could be anyone giving evidence . This lady has double anonymity as she does not have to give her name, especially as she in court on intimidating a witness . Maybe to do with a wider case perhaps . I think being totally covered up in some situations is totally wrong . Also this sort of thing doesn't help society as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 So you lol and dont know who the Liberal elite are or is? Start with Clegg, Cameron and Miliband and we can go from there. I lol'd because it reminded me of Dune, not that you are Dune obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 16 September, 2013 Share Posted 16 September, 2013 This clothing has been used by men to commit crimes. Which are already illegal irrespective of what the person is wearing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I lol'd because it reminded me of Dune, not that you are Dune obviously. That adds to the discussion, well done, unoriginal to boot, double whammy in one post nice touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 (edited) I am intensely uncomfortable with the veil/niqab/burka for the following reasons : problems of identification risks of concealment demonstration of lack of respect for the culture around the veil-wearer impairment to open communication and expression I find the notion of primary school teachers wearing a veil/niqab/burka absolutely appaling, and I would change the school of my children in this case. Absolutely fine with Hijab and Al-amira, and actually find Shayla kind of sexy, so it cant be an anti-Muslim thing with me. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm Edited 17 September, 2013 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 No problem with it in public, but in court there HAS to be certainty of ID or any evidence given is simply inadmissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 One of the reasons that it was banned in Belgium was that it 'undermined' the mandatory identity card which has a picture on it! Clearly we don't have that here but passports, bus passes, work security cards etc.. come into this category so there are some potential issues ! Frankly, I feel that people who want to settle in this country should be prepared to make some sacrifices in exchange for the right to be here ! When I recently visited mosques in Istanbul, I was happy to remove my shoes and my wife was happy to cover her head and shoulders, we did this with due respect for their culture ! All I ask is that others treat us in the same way, surely this is not too much to expect ?? This is a difficult debate to have . Someone will always try to use the PC warrant card on you for just highlighting common sense . If someone goes to an exam wearing the burka etc how do we know who is actually sitting the exam . What if a doctor wore full burka hijab etc . Would you want them to exam you . Knowing you don't have a clue who the hidden person is . This clothing has been used by men to commit crimes . More recently to undertake a robbery at selfridges a couple of months ago . As for the court case I think who ever is hidden should be seen by the judge and jury . It could be anyone giving evidence . This lady has double anonymity as she does not have to give her name, especially as she in court on intimidating a witness . Maybe to do with a wider case perhaps . I think being totally covered up in some situations is totally wrong . Also this sort of thing doesn't help society as a whole. 2 cracking posts that I completely agree with. I despair of the PC brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 17 September, 2013 Author Share Posted 17 September, 2013 2 cracking posts that I completely agree with. I despair of the PC brigade. Its like backing a rat into a corner, once there is nowhere to go... they get deperate and lose all reasonable grasp of rationality and reality.. hence they 'attack' you with aggresive words and personal insults, always failing to notice the irony of it all. They are a danger to us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I hate the whole PC thing but I still think we could show a bit of understanding and respect for other people's religious beliefs. I just hate the way the government raises issues like this to pander to the right wing racist vote that they are terrified of losing to UKIP at the next election. Most people don't like veils because they look weird and different, it's just ignorance. Obviously certain security situations require people to show their face but in most public situations they are harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Its like backing a rat into a corner, once there is nowhere to go... they get deperate and lose all reasonable grasp of rationality and reality.. hence they 'attack' you with aggresive words and personal insults, always failing to notice the irony of it all. They are a danger to us all. Who are you talking about exactly? Who's insulted you? This thread seems to be a perfectly reasoned debate. And if you're going to use cartoons, could they please be (a) relevant ("positive discrimination" has nothing to to do with the issue of veils), and (b) at least vaguely literate? As I suggested earlier, I personally don't like veils and I don't think it is a multicultural issue, or even a religious one, but rather one, historically, of male power being exerted over women. I don't advocate blanket (no pun...) bans, but there are clear instances when veils cannot be worn, and one of those (of many) is in a courtroom with jurors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 17 September, 2013 Author Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Who are you talking about exactly? Who's insulted you? This thread seems to be a perfectly reasoned debate. Nobody at all, no-one and I agree. I make it up as I go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I hate the whole PC thing but I still think we could show a bit of understanding and respect for other people's religious beliefs. I just hate the way the government raises issues like this to pander to the right wing racist vote that they are terrified of losing to UKIP at the next election. Most people don't like veils because they look weird and different, it's just ignorance. Obviously certain security situations require people to show their face but in most public situations they are harmless. The wearing of a niqab is not compulsory in Islam so it is not a matter of respecting somebody's religious beliefs. No-one is objecting to the other manifestations of the religion such as headscarves. I am insulted by a woman who completely covers her face because the implication is that I might have lustful or unworthy feelings towards her. I am offended because she feels the need to appear in public incognito. Whatever you might feel about UKIP this behaviour is not part of British culture and tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I can't agree with the logic of the security/identification issues which have repeatedly come up on this thread. They are so easily solvable with some basic rules regarding needing to identify yourself when taking exams/getting through customs/giving evidence etc etc. It's such a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The wearing of a niqab is not compulsory in Islam so it is not a matter of respecting somebody's religious beliefs. No-one is objecting to the other manifestations of the religion such as headscarves. I am insulted by a woman who completely covers her face because the implication is that I might have lustful or unworthy feelings towards her. I am offended because she feels the need to appear in public incognito. Whatever you might feel about UKIP this behaviour is not part of British culture and tradition. TBF is she is a hottie I probably would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 2 cracking posts that I completely agree with. I despair of the PC brigade. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I can't agree with the logic of the security/identification issues which have repeatedly come up on this thread. They are so easily solvable with some basic rules regarding needing to identify yourself when taking exams/getting through customs/giving evidence etc etc. It's such a non-issue. How is it solvable when she has to give evidence? She was objecting to the jury being able to see her whilst she did so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The wearing of a niqab is not compulsory in Islam so it is not a matter of respecting somebody's religious beliefs. No-one is objecting to the other manifestations of the religion such as headscarves. I am insulted by a woman who completely covers her face because the implication is that I might have lustful or unworthy feelings towards her. I am offended because she feels the need to appear in public incognito. Whatever you might feel about UKIP this behaviour is not part of British culture and tradition. Maybe she is offended by dirty old men staring at her, either way it is her choice, her beliefs and as long as there is no security risks involved she is not harming anyone. If we start telling muslim women what to wear we are no better than some muslim countries who tell women what they can and cannot wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Maybe she is offended by dirty old men staring at her, either way it is her choice, her beliefs and as long as there is no security risks involved she is not harming anyone. If we start telling muslim women what to wear we are no better than some muslim countries who tell women what they can and cannot wear. You don't know its her choice. She may be forced to by her father / brothers / husband. Banning something is not necessarily a negative, it can free people too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The judge ruled she must remove it to give evidence. These are small issues which can get ironed out. The main issues for me remain; a) What right does government have to decide who wears what? b) Why should society care? Whilst I find the veil objectionable, I can't see that it's society's job to ban it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 You don't know its her choice. She may be forced to by her father / brothers / husband. Banning something is not necessarily a negative, it can free people too. Freeing people by criminalising them? Seems like a contradiction. Better off attempting the difficult task of changing the views of those that think a veil is necessary. You may think it can't be done but we see through history how flexible and changeable the views of religious/cultures are based on the societies they live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The judge ruled she must remove it to give evidence. These are small issues which can get ironed out. The main issues for me remain; a) What right does government have to decide who wears what? b) Why should society care? Whilst I find the veil objectionable, I can't see that it's society's job to ban it. Would you employ someone in a customer facing role wearing a veil? Would you be happy having someone teach your kids wearing one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 No on both counts. And if someone wants to attend interviews wearing a veil then they're going to struggle getting the job, granted. But that's their problem, and I'm not very sympathetic to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The judge ruled she must remove it to give evidence. These are small issues which can get ironed out. The main issues for me remain; a) What right does government have to decide who wears what? b) Why should society care? Whilst I find the veil objectionable, I can't see that it's society's job to ban it. The judge also said that the grey area in the law regarding this could potentially cause chaos. So we probably should have a law banning full face coverings when giving evidence in court then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Maybe she is offended by dirty old men staring at her, either way it is her choice, her beliefs and as long as there is no security risks involved she is not harming anyone. If we start telling muslim women what to wear we are no better than some muslim countries who tell women what they can and cannot wear. We are not telling them what to wear, we are telling them what they can't wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Freeing people by criminalising them? Seems like a contradiction. Better off attempting the difficult task of changing the views of those that think a veil is necessary. You may think it can't be done but we see through history how flexible and changeable the views of religious/cultures are based on the societies they live. So you think slavery was ended by voluntary choice? that maximum working hours and holidays were voluntarily brought forward by employers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I hate the whole PC thing but I still think we could show a bit of understanding and respect for other people's religious beliefs. I just hate the way the government raises issues like this to pander to the right wing racist vote that they are terrified of losing to UKIP at the next election. Most people don't like veils because they look weird and different, it's just ignorance. Obviously certain security situations require people to show their face but in most public situations they are harmless. They may well do but anybody with a tiny bit of intellect will see through it, what about the average Joe in the street, what about accepting the values of the Country you are moving into? That would be a start, this major issue are people see God higher than state, this Country split and dropped God a while ago so its alien to us, surely why would you move to a Country where religion is not a big part of everyday life? Why go somewhere to assert yourself as oppose to assimilate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 So you think slavery was ended by voluntary choice? that maximum working hours and holidays were voluntarily brought forward by employers? A different argument. We didn't criminalise the work of the slaves to invalidate slavery, we made the trade illegal. If you ban the clothing you may only heap more difficulty on to the person wearing it, who is probably already oppressed, by criminalising them. Secondary you insult their religion/customs causing problems within the community. Better off tackling the reasons why people wear the veil head on. Not easy I know but preferable to a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 So you think slavery was ended by voluntary choice? that maximum working hours and holidays were voluntarily brought forward by employers? The abolition of slavery on this Country was yes indeed. Dont fall into the trap of thinking the American civil war either was solely over slavery, it was not, it was an excuse in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Good to see the EDL are on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 The abolition of slavery on this Country was yes indeed. Dont fall into the trap of thinking the American civil war either was solely over slavery, it was not, it was an excuse in many ways. Actually Lord Justice Mansfield ruling on emancipation effectively ended it in this country and the 1833 act ended it on overseas territories. Nothing voluntary about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Good to see the EDL are on it. That is ****ing hilarious, even the poster looks like a bloke in a balaclava. On a side note if people want to ban the burkha shouldn't there also be a ban on the wearing of hoodies and baseball caps? I'm sure the burkha is used in practically zero crimes in this country by comparison and i would also suggest that they're certainly more intimidating to the majority of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I don't get the hubbub about veils - if the Bible was re-issued with an added bit saying all Christians had to wear hessian sacks over their heads, would there be uproar about wanting to ban hessian sacks? Although I don't really like the religious connotations of wearing the veil, I know several Muslim women and none of them have a problem with it. If they don't want to wear it, then they don't wear it - unless they're married to some kind of nutter who makes them. Ultimately I think it's a personal choice based on a religious belief, and any "security risks" are more likely a projection of paranoia by our Western culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I don't get the hubbub about veils - if the Bible was re-issued with an added bit saying all Christians had to wear hessian sacks over their heads, would there be uproar about wanting to ban hessian sacks? Although I don't really like the religious connotations of wearing the veil, I know several Muslim women and none of them have a problem with it. If they don't want to wear it, then they don't wear it - unless they're married to some kind of nutter who makes them. Ultimately I think it's a personal choice based on a religious belief, and any "security risks" are more likely a projection of paranoia by our Western culture. That's great - Except the burkha isn't a religious symbol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Interestingly this is not part of Islamism but comes from extreme fundamentalism. The same fundamentalism that the Taliban and other extreme groups use to persecute non members. In my view this form of dress should be banned in public as there is no way of knowing who is inside or what is concealed. Terrorists and bombers threatening this country are almost exclusively from the groups that adopt this philosophy. As an airline captain I wouldn't allow anybody on the aircraft with their faces hidden. I never had to turn anyone away but I was asked on occasions whether I would accept passengers and always refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Actually Lord Justice Mansfield ruling on emancipation effectively ended it in this country and the 1833 act ended it on overseas territories. Nothing voluntary about it. Popular opinion was against far before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I don't get the hubbub about veils - if the Bible was re-issued with an added bit saying all Christians had to wear hessian sacks over their heads, would there be uproar about wanting to ban hessian sacks? Although I don't really like the religious connotations of wearing the veil, I know several Muslim women and none of them have a problem with it. If they don't want to wear it, then they don't wear it - unless they're married to some kind of nutter who makes them. Ultimately I think it's a personal choice based on a religious belief, and any "security risks" are more likely a projection of paranoia by our Western culture. But what about in schools, colleges, hospitals, courts? Surely you can see the issue of basic communication in many environments is severly restricted by the use of a veil? Also, why would any women choose to wear such a garment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 Popular opinion was against far before that. One of the first lessons at law school is that you cannot pass a law that is not supported by a large majority amongst the people it affects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I hate the whole PC thing but I still think we could show a bit of understanding and respect for other people's religious beliefs. I just hate the way the government raises issues like this to pander to the right wing racist vote that they are terrified of losing to UKIP at the next election. Most people don't like veils because they look weird and different, it's just ignorance. Obviously certain security situations require people to show their face but in most public situations they are harmless.good post and a good analysis of current political scene and i agree with judges comments on the case he is involved with.....it always makes me laugh when people moan about the liberal elite but forget to mention that saudi arabia,the taliban and al Qaeda are extreme conservatives and.despite some people moaning i,m glad that west in general we live in liberal society where we can have free speech and disagree with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 One of the first lessons at law school is that you cannot pass a law that is not supported by a large majority amongst the people it affects. It wasn't a law. It was a judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 It wasn't a law. It was a judgement. The judgement came 70 years before the law came in fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 It wasn't a law. It was a judgement. Yeah, whatever. Lots of laws in England are based on precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 One of the first lessons at law school is that you cannot pass a law that is not supported by a large majority amongst the people it affects. That is as far from the truth as you will find it, many laws have been brought into place without popular consent and then the Government has reneged, the Poll Tax straight away, the vote on Europe for the other way around, Royal Mail, the list could go on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I suppose the answer might be to say there should be no outward expression of any faith. No crucifixes, no sikh turbans, no veils or niqabs, no yarmulkas or long curly sideburns, no nuns' or monks' habits........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 That is as far from the truth as you will find it, many laws have been brought into place without popular consent and then the Government has reneged, the Poll Tax straight away, the vote on Europe for the other way around, Royal Mail, the list could go on and on. That's what my neighbouring fellow students at Cambridge told me in there first few days of lectures. The Poll Tax debacle more or less proves the point. My main point is that in general the law tends to follow the prevailing sentiment at the time. You can't force a new behaviour on a populace that is not prepared to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 I suppose the answer might be to say there should be no outward expression of any faith. No crucifixes, no sikh turbans, no veils or niqabs, no yarmulkas or long curly sideburns, no nuns' or monks' habits........ But this Burkha is not a religious symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 17 September, 2013 Share Posted 17 September, 2013 That's what my neighbouring fellow students at Cambridge told me in there first few days of lectures. The Poll Tax debacle more or less proves the point. My main point is that in general the law tends to follow the prevailing sentiment at the time. You can't force a new behaviour on a populace that is not prepared to accept it. No you didn't say that you stated that only laws are passed that have the consent of the people, regardless of whether you went to Cambridge or not you are incoreect, laws have been imposed against the will of the people for centuries. How does the Poll Tax prove your point? It was replaced as it was so hated, it brought down Thatcher so it hardly had the will of the people. I dont know why you felt the need to state you went to Cambridge, it does not reinforce your argument, it undermines it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now