FoxyPV Posted 7 May 2010 Posted 7 May 2010 Yes but on the other hand, if I wanted to wear a crash helmet in school because my Mam thought I'd be safe, who are they to object? Well I would because I couldn't see my face. How often do you see your own face?
Smudge Posted 7 May 2010 Posted 7 May 2010 How often do you see your own face? Too often, it's bloody depressing.
Smudge Posted 7 May 2010 Posted 7 May 2010 True that. Oi you, self deprecation is supposed not to be positively reinforced by non-selfs.
The Doctor Posted 8 May 2010 Posted 8 May 2010 Thief in Burka gets off as victim fails to identify her. A female thief known as Fatima the Thief, who is apparently responsible for hundreds of robberies in the North of England, seems to keep getting away with her crimes because she wears a Burka. She allegedly attacked a 92 year old man in Newcastle and stole his mint humbugs. The victim of the crime, Tom Smeaton, went to a Police Identity Parade to try and pick out the thief but all he saw was a group of women wearing Burkas. "I would not have believed it if I had not seen it with my own eyes "said Tom, "All I can see is staring eyes,so I don't see the point of this Identity parade". Poor old Tom left after failing to identify the thief and headed to the nearest sweet shop for some humbugs. Surely that can't be true? Why would you steal mint humbugs rather than anything of value? saw a similar story in the metro during the week. Some bloke robbed a bank and hid his id using a burka + full body dress. perhaps i should be a bit more serious but this topic reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0KmyOK_DI
Daggers Posted 8 May 2010 Posted 8 May 2010 Surely that can't be true? Why would you steal mint humbugs rather than anything of value? Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.
ozleicester Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Well, thats just about game over isnt it.... 89th minute...................Terrorists - 1.... real people - 0 Stupid ****ing c*nts, no.. NO... NO..... NOOOOOOOOO!!!
Unit Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Well, thats just about game over isnt it.... 89th minute...................Terrorists - 1.... real people - 0 Stupid ****ing c*nts, no.. NO... NO..... NOOOOOOOOO!!! Have a drink last night?
l444ry Posted 9 May 2010 Posted 9 May 2010 Burka King arrested. The founder of Afghanistan's leading burka shop was arrested yesterday for violating the wrong woman. Mohammed Moeggs, 37, is the founder of the "Burka King" chain, Kabul's leading retailer for fashionable burkas. Yesterday he picked up what he thought was his wife from the hairdressers, but she turned out to be a completely different woman, a Mrs Mopork. Mr. Moeggs claimed that he couldn't tell that the woman was not his wife because, "she had a bloody great sheet over her head". Ironically both Mrs. Moeggs and Mrs. Mopork get their burkas from Burka King and were wearing identical ones. Mr. Moeggs has apologised to Mr. Mopork for violating his wife and has offered his own wife for compensatory violation.
ozleicester Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Have a drink last night? Ummm, no. I just believe this is the top of a very icy slope, the fact that now people are no longer free to choose what they want to wear, then, we have lost the "war on terror". Every time one of these laws (which removes our basic rights) is enacted, we all lose. But it seems that the sheeple are happy to go along with it.
FoxyPV Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 Ummm, no. I just believe this is the top of a very icy slope, the fact that now people are no longer free to choose what they want to wear, then, we have lost the "war on terror". Every time one of these laws (which removes our basic rights) is enacted, we all lose. But it seems that the sheeple are happy to go along with it. Hate this term.
The Doctor Posted 10 May 2010 Posted 10 May 2010 good idea , however , i doubt if there would be much opposition to banning crash helmets ( or any other non religious face covering )from places such as banks , post offices , schools etc aren't crash helmets already banned from being worn in a bank?
Guest Bilo Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 An interesting piece on the issue (at least in France but equally applicable elsewhere) on the issue by Christopher Hitchens. French attempts to outlaw the burqa strike a blow for the rights of womenThe French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa—whether the garment covers "only" the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a "ban." To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another. On the door of my bank in Washington, D.C., is a printed notice politely requesting me to remove any form of facial concealment before I enter the premises. The notice doesn't bore me or weary me by explaining its reasoning: A person barging through those doors with any sort of mask would incur the right and proper presumption of guilt. This presumption should operate in the rest of society. I would indignantly refuse to have any dealings with a nurse or doctor or teacher who hid his or her face, let alone a tax inspector or customs official. Where would we be without sayings like "What have you got to hide?" or "You dare not show your face"? Ah, but the particular and special demand to consider the veil and the burqa as an exemption applies only to women. And it also applies only to religious practice (and, unless we foolishly pretend otherwise, only to one religious practice). This at once tells you all you need to know: Society is being asked to abandon an immemorial tradition of equality and openness in order to gratify one faith, one faith that has a very questionable record in respect of females. Let me ask a simple question to the pseudoliberals who take a soft line on the veil and the burqa. What about the Ku Klux Klan? Notorious for its hooded style and its reactionary history, this gang is and always was dedicated to upholding Protestant and Anglo-Saxon purity. I do not deny the right of the KKK to take this faith-based view, which is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I might even go so far as to say that, at a rally protected by police, they could lawfully hide their nasty faces. But I am not going to have a hooded man or woman teach my children, or push their way into the bank ahead of me, or drive my taxi or bus, and there will never be a law that says I have to. There are lesser objections to the covered face or the all-covering cloak. The latter has often been used by male criminals—not just religious terrorists but common thugs—to conceal themselves and make an escape. It has also been used to conceal horrible injuries inflicted on abused females. It is incompatible—because of its effect on peripheral vision—with activities such as driving a car or negotiating traffic. This removes it from the sphere of private decision-making and makes it a danger to others, as well as an offense to the ordinary democratic civility that depends on phrases like "Nice to see you." It might be objected that in some Muslim societies women are not allowed to drive in the first place. But that would absolutely emphasize my second point. All the above criticisms would be valid if Muslim women were as passionately committed to wearing a burqa as a male Klansman is committed to donning a pointy-headed white shroud. But, in fact, we have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way. Mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honor-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing that is mandated by their menfolk. This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states? The burqa and the veil, surely, are the most aggressive sign of a refusal to integrate or accommodate. Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair, and I defy anybody to find any authority in the Quran for the concealment of the face. Not that it would matter in the least if the Quran said otherwise. Religion is the worst possible excuse for any exception to the common law. Mormons may not have polygamous marriage, female circumcision is a federal crime in this country, and in some states Christian Scientists face prosecution if they neglect their children by denying them medical care. Do we dare lecture the French for declaring simply that all citizens and residents, whatever their confessional allegiance, must be able to recognize one another in the clearest sense of that universal term? So it's really quite simple. My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine. Next but not least comes the right of women to show their faces, which easily trumps the right of their male relatives or their male imams to decide otherwise. The law must be decisively on the side of transparency. The French are striking a blow not just for liberty and equality and fraternity, but for sorority too. http://www.slate.com/id/2253493/?from=rss
FoxyPV Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 Decent article but drawing parrallels between the KKK and Islam?
Guest Bilo Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 Decent article but drawing parrallels between the KKK and Islam? Hitchens is very much a firm atheist so doesn't have a huge amount of time for religion in general, though I agree he gets a bit shaky at that point. Overall though, plenty to think about in the article as you say.
Webbo Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 I've nothing to prove in this debate. I've stood up for religious freedoms on here many times. I don't like the burqa, I think it's sexist and oppressive but just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think it should be banned. As long as there are exception like taking a driving test or going through customs then I think it should be allowed. That said I can't understand why some of the most ardent atheists on here go out of their way to defend the burqa.
Daggers Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 That said I can't understand why some of the most ardent atheists on here go out of their way to defend the burqa. I don't. I don't want to see clothing banned, s'all. I think the burka looks fvcking stupid and is worn by separatists who ought to question where they desire to live.
hairy Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 I think the burka looks fvcking stupid and is worn by separatists who ought to question where they desire to live. Like flat-capped Yorkshire supporters and shellsuit Scoucers?
Daggers Posted 11 May 2010 Posted 11 May 2010 Like flat-capped Yorkshire supporters and shellsuit Scoucers? No - more like those crap baggy jeans which expose the wearer's arse to the world.
ozleicester Posted 12 May 2010 Posted 12 May 2010 I've nothing to prove in this debate. I've stood up for religious freedoms on here many times. I don't like the burqa, I think it's sexist and oppressive but just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think it should be banned. As long as there are exception like taking a driving test or going through customs then I think it should be allowed. That said I can't understand why some of the most ardent atheists on here go out of their way to defend the burqa. Im not defending the Burqa, Im defending a basic human right, that being the freedom of choice.
davieG Posted 12 May 2010 Posted 12 May 2010 Im not defending the Burqa, Im defending a basic human right, that being the freedom of choice. Ignoring the Burka argument for a minute 'freedom of choice' is not a basic human right because it depends on how ones choice impacts on others. There are many things that certain people might choose to do that would be deemed unacceptable to the majority of people. If you walk naked down the street you will be arrested yet one could argue and some people do that 'what could be more natural' than that. It's all very subjective and open to public opinion whether the Burka can be seen in a similar light I don't know but at the very least there are some obvious situations where it is surely unacceptable, like wise there are places where prancing around in the nude is deemed acceptable.
davieG Posted 12 May 2010 Posted 12 May 2010 Perhaps the answer is the Sunnyville Burka Colony at least they wouldn't get sun burnt.
FoxyPV Posted 12 May 2010 Posted 12 May 2010 Perhaps the answer is the Sunnyville Burka Colony at least they wouldn't get sun burnt. It's a bit unfair though on those in the bushes- they'll have to work that bit harder
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.