Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Before this flares up I'll just point out that Pulsar's original point about a dress code was in reference to being naked.

Sarcastic comments don't come across very well in writing.

If you read his post, it actually wasn't sarcastic. It was what he thought to be an extreme example (obviously offered as humour but true nonetheless) of a serious point he was making.

I objected to his point by showing him that his example isn't exactly true and how it violates an important principle which he may find valuable...

Sarcasm doesn't always come out in writing but you can usually recognize it in context...

 

[DavidB]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Don't just ban the burqa, ban Islam.


I perceive Islam as no better than Nazi fascism or Japanese imperialism or Stalinist Communism. Islam is a disgusting political ideology that has obsoletely no place what so ever in a modern western democracy.

The sooner we realise this, the better off we will all be.

 

[Unwardil]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Yeah, and the U.S. was so great when they had that holy communist witch hunt going on wasn't it? Say what you want about the Cold War but man it was good for the economy!

 

[theatheistguy]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Don't just ban the burqa, ban Islam.


I perceive Islam as no better than Nazi fascism or Japanese imperialism or Stalinist Communism. Islam is a disgusting political ideology that has obsoletely no place what so ever in a modern western democracy.

The sooner we realise this, the better off we will all be.

Ban Islam....right....should be just ban free thought and expression at the same time then? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we should get rid of it, who makes you the deciding vote? Well perhaps you mean that Islam is objectively evil or, perhaps less idiotic, that many people dislike it as it has done much wrong. Well I agree that it's done a crap load wrong, but as have most religions, as has capitalism, as has nationalism, in fact when it comes down to it, as have most people, so what do you suggest, we ban people? And no that is not reductio ad absurdum, it's just your argument taken to its logical conclusion.

If you want to tackle Islam and indeed religion or ignorance in general, then tackle it head on. Do not ban it for that does nothing but drive it underground. Just like the BNP should have the right to talk (short of inciting hatred and violence) and if they go on something like Question Time (BBC) they should not be shouted down and ridiculed (for you only martyr them in doing so), but rather, asked serious questions to show their true colours. People do not need to hear others shouting, "You're scum," to decide this on their own, but rather if you actually ask the BNP to explain their policies and the basis for them, you can see just how racist and bigoted they truly are.

As an aside, in the Question Time interview I thought it was quite telling that when one serious question was asked to Jack Straw in regards to it not being the BNP that had established detention centres, or who had said that foreigners should speak English in their own homes, or that he would not speak to a woman in a burqa; Jack Straws only defence was to point at Nick Griffin and effectively say, "Well he's an even bigger dick."

So indeed, if you want to expose Islam (and any other bigoted dogma) for it's true self, do no ban it, rather make it public knowledge the human rights violations to women and children done in the name of Islam, show what Sharia Law actually means, reveal that the punishment for apostasy (as well as many other 'crimes') is death.


Finally, although the burqa is not detailed in the Qur'an, it is definitely eluded to in the Hadith and some other Islamic texts.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Yeah, and the U.S. was so great when they had that holy communist witch hunt going on wasn't it? Say what you want about the Cold War but man it was good for the economy!

It was the suspension of civil liberties that made McCarthyism possible. In that case, they were suspended for fear of The Communist Threat. In the case of modern European burkha banning, it's either a fear of Islam or a fear of not maintaining the surveillance state or some combination thereof...

Don't be so quick to remove freedoms because you fear some perceived threat. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety..."

 

[Unwardil]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It was the suspension of civil liberties that made McCarthyism possible. In that case, they were suspended for fear of The Communist Threat. In the case of modern European burkha banning, it's either a fear of Islam or a fear of not maintaining the surveillance state or some combination thereof...

Don't be so quick to remove freedoms because you fear some perceived threat. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety..."

Sorry, that was a reply to the idea that islam it's self should be banned, not to the overall topic.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Sorry, that was a reply to the idea that islam it's self should be banned, not to the overall topic.

Oh, I see that now... It's funny how much the meaning of your post changes depending on the context you assume. Next time, you might consider quoting someone to produce the necessary context...

 

[youneac]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Let's make this simple (hopefully). The only places where a ban on the burka exists are in muslim countries. No country in the western hemisphere is trying to ban the burka. What is happening is that some countries are drafting or implementing laws or regulations that prohibit hiding your full body in public. This is done for a number of reasons, from the use of public cameras and face recognition software and the simple fact that people feel instinctively uncomfortable when they do not see someone's hands, to the given that the ability to recognize a person is valued in the west and the possibility for criminals to hide from pursuit by donning clothing that makes them unrecognizable. The fact that the burka is affected by this ban is circumstantial, though its increased occurrence most likely is one of the drivers behind such laws.

These are astounding apologetics for your state.

These are just facts, not apologies.

Does your government really need to know exactly where you are and what you're doing at all times? Should they have the right to this information? Are you obligated to submit such information?

Opinions evidently differ on that matter. IMO the default should be that the right to privacy prevails, though in some (exceptional) cases security may trump privacy. Reality unfortunately is different. Sad fact is that every mobile phone is designed to be locatable within 20m (65ft) as long as it's switched on.

Are gloves illegal?

Gloves do not hide where a person's hands are, of what is held in them. It'd be pretty hard to hide a belt with explosives and a detonator switch with gloves.

Criminals may use knives to hurt people in unlawful ways (I certainly hope there isn't a means to hurt them in lawful ways!). Is this reason enough to ban knives?

In all civilized countries carrying a weapon is unlawful, unless it is done with a designated purpose.

What laws are we discussing in particular? I have trouble believing it's a ban against hiding ones body since that gets done in the dead of winter by pretty much everyone. Even if you aren't going all out and wearing a balaclava, you're doing the same thing when you cover your face with your scarf. How can this really be made illegal?

I guess you'd look pretty silly with a scarf covering your eyes, besides it being rather dangerous to yourself. There's also quite some countries with a climate that does not require polar tunic. But I do agree about the dubious tenability of such laws. Think about e.g. motor cyclists.

Are you not afraid of a totalitarian government?

We should always be weary of government exceeding its boundaries. I'd first start being afraid when a government starts developing an internal security force large enough to control the population.

Dress codes have always existed, either culturally driven or legally enforced. Try walking through any city naked, wearing a bloodstained jumpsuit and balaclava, or with a T-shirt saying "Holocaust Shmolocaust" and you will find that out. The insistence to ignore this fact and claim a right to exception based on some bogus religious pretext is abominable. Just accept that when you enter a region with a different culture it is you who will have to adapt, not demand that the local culture adapts to you. That is why, even though we nag about it, we adhere to local dressing customs when we visit another culture, and it is why we may expect the same from others visiting ours.

Understand that the issue is not whether I believe these laws exist for you or that you're obligated to follow said laws. I'm discussing the merits of these laws and whether your government should be enacting them. I'm not suggesting that anyone break the laws of anyone's country...

There are many cultural dress codes but very few are legally enforced (at least, where I am living). You are allowed to break from culture if you desire. How can you do otherwise and pretend to live in a free country? I know I bring up freedom a lot but it is a very important value to me and I'm shocked and awed that it's not to others on this forum!

Freedom is a meaningless propaganda phrase, usually touted by regimes that demand others to adopt their ways. True freedom is anarchy, which is antagonistic to society and social behavior. We all trade in freedoms for social and economic benefits, only the choices in what we trade in differ.

That you find something abominable is irrelevant. Many people think it's abominable that I think religion is the dumbest thing on Earth yet I have the freedom to both hold that opinion and express it publicly. Why are you so fond of conformity?

It's relevant to me; it's irrelevant to me whether you think it's relevant.
As I wrote above, we all trade in liberties in favor of conformity to get the benefits of having a society. Only we don't really realize the constraints that we grew up with, but clearly see the different ones in other societies.

As an aside, in the western world (that is, west of the Atlantic!), you may freely walk through the city wearing what looks like a bloodstained jumpsuit (you're not naked if you're wearing a jumpsuit) and balaclava. The police do have a right to stop and question you for suspicious behaviour but if you have a reason for doing this, like filming a movie or it being Halloween, then they can't stop you...

So you do need a reason; that means it's not a complete freedom. How about the t-shirt? Or carrying a bottle of liquor that's not brown-bagged?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Does your government really need to know exactly where you are and what you're doing at all times? Should they have the right to this information? Are you obligated to submit such information?

Opinions evidently differ on that matter. IMO the default should be that the right to privacy prevails, though in some (exceptional) cases security may trump privacy. Reality unfortunately is different. Sad fact is that every mobile phone is designed to be locatable within 20m (65ft) as long as it's switched on.

Okay, so it sounds like we don't actually disagree philosophically. Your "default" is similar to mine which is different from the reality of some European states. I was simply saying that I disagree with the merits of this reality and think the affected states should reconsider their position...

Are gloves illegal?

Gloves do not hide where a person's hands are, of what is held in them. It'd be pretty hard to hide a belt with explosives and a detonator switch with gloves.

What you had said earlier was:

Let's make this simple (hopefully). The only places where a ban on the burka exists are in muslim countries. No country in the western hemisphere is trying to ban the burka. What is happening is that some countries are drafting or implementing laws or regulations that prohibit hiding your full body in public. This is done for a number of reasons, from the use of public cameras and face recognition software and the simple fact that people feel instinctively uncomfortable when they do not see someone's hands, to the given that the ability to recognize a person is valued in the west and the possibility for criminals to hide from pursuit by donning clothing that makes them unrecognizable. The fact that the burka is affected by this ban is circumstantial, though its increased occurrence most likely is one of the drivers behind such laws.

The emphasis is mine...

In context, you're trying to use how hiding one's hands make people feel as justification for dress code laws. I was trying to point out how untenable such laws are by showing the natural consequences to them.

Also, you were overstating your case. I don't think the effects of hidden hands on people's emotions is a "simple fact" or a fact at all!

Criminals may use knives to hurt people in unlawful ways (I certainly hope there isn't a means to hurt them in lawful ways!). Is this reason enough to ban knives?

In all civilized countries carrying a weapon is unlawful, unless it is done with a designated purpose.

Carrying a weapon without a permit is unlawful but carrying knives is not, despite how these knives can be used as weapons. Using a knife as a weapon is, in most cases, a crime. Carrying a knife is not...

The point is that just because something can be used to commit a crime is not reason enough to ban it...

What laws are we discussing in particular? I have trouble believing it's a ban against hiding ones body since that gets done in the dead of winter by pretty much everyone. Even if you aren't going all out and wearing a balaclava, you're doing the same thing when you cover your face with your scarf. How can this really be made illegal?

I guess you'd look pretty silly with a scarf covering your eyes, besides it being rather dangerous to yourself. There's also quite some countries with a climate that does not require polar tunic. But I do agree about the dubious tenability of such laws. Think about e.g. motor cyclists.

Burkha's don't cover one's eyes either so I'm not sure why you're objecting on those grounds...

At least we're beginning to agree that these laws are not tenable. I would further assert that they're antithetical to free societies...

Are you not afraid of a totalitarian government?

We should always be weary of government exceeding its boundaries. I'd first start being afraid when a government starts developing an internal security force large enough to control the population.

I think it's prudent to start worrying long before that...

Understand that the issue is not whether I believe these laws exist for you or that you're obligated to follow said laws. I'm discussing the merits of these laws and whether your government should be enacting them. I'm not suggesting that anyone break the laws of anyone's country...

There are many cultural dress codes but very few are legally enforced (at least, where I am living). You are allowed to break from culture if you desire. How can you do otherwise and pretend to live in a free country? I know I bring up freedom a lot but it is a very important value to me and I'm shocked and awed that it's not to others on this forum!

Freedom is a meaningless propaganda phrase, usually touted by regimes that demand others to adopt their ways. True freedom is anarchy, which is antagonistic to society and social behavior. We all trade in freedoms for social and economic benefits, only the choices in what we trade in differ.

Can you exemplify a "regime that demanded others to adopt their ways" in the name of freedom?

Freedom is not a zero-sum game. You can remove freedom without trading it in for anything...

If you've read my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I don't advocate anarchy and call it freedom. What I am saying is that banning the burkha specifically and dress codes in general are an undue burden to personal freedom for the dubious motives of the state. I'm saying that it's hard to call a country whose government has that much control over the individual a free society...

Even anarchy isn't freedom in the sense that you mean it since your freedoms are still affected by the actions of others. Throughout this thread, however, nothing like that was ever my claim so you're arguing against a straw man...

That you find something abominable is irrelevant. Many people think it's abominable that I think religion is the dumbest thing on Earth yet I have the freedom to both hold that opinion and express it publicly. Why are you so fond of conformity?

It's relevant to me; it's irrelevant to me whether you think it's relevant.
As I wrote above, we all trade in liberties in favor of conformity to get the benefits of having a society. Only we don't really realize the constraints that we grew up with, but clearly see the different ones in other societies.

Actually, I do know this. It was your bizarre assumption that I hadn't...

If you think your personal aesthetics are relevant then how do you propose society determine whose aesthetics we enforce by law and whose we ban likewise?

As an aside, in the western world (that is, west of the Atlantic!), you may freely walk through the city wearing what looks like a bloodstained jumpsuit (you're not naked if you're wearing a jumpsuit) and balaclava. The police do have a right to stop and question you for suspicious behaviour but if you have a reason for doing this, like filming a movie or it being Halloween, then they can't stop you...

So you do need a reason; that means it's not a complete freedom. How about the t-shirt? Or carrying a bottle of liquor that's not brown-bagged?

It's more free that a state that can dictate how you dress!

The t-shirt's legally fine in the west although you'll lose popularity fast!

Liquor laws are a sad reflection of the more general drug prohibition in the west. Incidentally, there are still regions where drinking in public is perfectly legal, such as Las Vegas...

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Why is everyone making this more complicated than it is?

You should wear what you like, for whatever reason, including feeling obliged (it's your business), except when there's a very good reason not to. Simple.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

except when there's a very good reason not to.

and that's the question, is there a very good reason not to?

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Why is everyone making this more complicated than it is?

You should wear what you like, for whatever reason, including feeling obliged (it's your business), except when there's a very good reason not to. Simple.

And I say to that, DUH. I don't think ANYONE disagrees with that.

What you just posted is the dress-code equivalent of:

"You should EAT/KICK/SAY/LOOK AT/OBLITERATE/DOMESTICATE/PICK AT what you like, for whatever reason, including feeling obliged (it's your business), except when there's a very good reason not to. Simple."

You seem to have a very simplistic view on... Pretty much everything. You hold views that are generalized feel-good platitudes, and then you try to detail your arguments with something so insignificant and obvious that it renders your entire argument meaningless.

The issue here is WHAT constitutes a "good reason"? That's the problem we're trying to wrestle with here and it is by no means simple.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Aught -

It's not a question of is there, it's a question of when is there and when isn't there. Which is slightly different.

If someone wears a burka because they're obliged to, that's their business. Everyone has the choice of going along with what they're told or not. That's life. There are times when wearing one could be an issue, but generally, it's each to their own. If others disapprove for whatever reason, that's their own business aswell. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Why is everyone making this more complicated than it is?

You should wear what you like, for whatever reason, including feeling obliged (it's your business), except when there's a very good reason not to. Simple.

And I say to that, DUH. I don't think ANYONE disagrees with that.

What you just posted is the dress-code equivalent of:

"You should EAT/KICK/SAY/LOOK AT/OBLITERATE/DOMESTICATE/PICK AT what you like, for whatever reason, including feeling obliged (it's your business), except when there's a very good reason not to. Simple."

You seem to have a very simplistic view on... Pretty much everything. You hold views that are generalized feel-good platitudes, and then you try to detail your arguments with something so insignificant and obvious that it renders your entire argument meaningless.

The issue here is WHAT constitutes a "good reason"? That's the problem we're trying to wrestle with here and it is by no means simple.

What constitutes a good reason? Safety, identification, etc. But that's pretty obvious, even simplistic.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

What constitutes a good reason? Safety, identification, etc. But that's pretty obvious, even simplistic.

Again, more obvious and simplistic explanations from you that mean almost nothing at all. To both of those I say DUHHH. The irony here is that you're accusing everyone of complicating things where your scope was far too wide to be applicable to the topic. Now you've started to narrow it. Good, we're doing better already. But not narrow enough.

Under what context is safety and identification necessarily good reasons? What time and place? What kind of clothing are you referring to? How many times must I call you out on being too generalized and you coming back with less general statements before we get to the point of the thread?

You can't just chuck out more and more generalizations (albeit less so) and hope that I'll get on board with generalizations that're less general. You have to actually make an argument to be considered in the discussion.

1. Can you argue for or against banning BURQA'S, and not for CLOTHING in general?
2. Can you identify what constitutes good reasons for or against banning of burqa's?
3. Can you stop yelling, essentially, "context context context!!" without identifying which ones you think are relevant to the discussion?

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

What constitutes a good reason? Safety, identification, etc. But that's pretty obvious, even simplistic.

Again, more obvious and simplistic explanations from you that mean almost nothing at all. To both of those I say DUHHH. The irony here is that you're accusing everyone of complicating things where your scope was far too wide to be applicable to the topic. Now you've started to narrow it. Good, we're doing better already. But not narrow enough.

Under what context is safety and identification necessarily good reasons? What time and place? What kind of clothing are you referring to? How many times must I call you out on being too generalized and you coming back with less general statements before we get to the point of the thread?

You can't just chuck out more and more generalizations (albeit less so) and hope that I'll get on board with generalizations that're less general. You have to actually make an argument to be considered in the discussion.

1. Can you argue for or against banning BURQA'S, and not for CLOTHING in general?
2. Can you identify what constitutes good reasons for or against banning of burqa's?
3. Can you stop yelling, essentially, "context context context!!" without identifying which ones you think are relevant to the discussion?

I'm not in favour of banning items of clothing in themselves, whatever they are. The only time when items of clothing should not be allowed are as I said, whenever it's a matter of safety, identification, etc. That can be debated, and I'm not discussing what constitues a matter of safety or identification, etc. because my point is that personal disapproval isn't a reason.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Aught -

It's not a question of is there, it's a question of when is there and when isn't there. Which is slightly different.

but in this case it's so similar as to be a pointless distinction.

If someone wears a burka because they're obliged to, that's their business. Everyone has the choice of going along with what they're told or not.

What about when they are compelled to wear it? What if it is used to control women and limit their freedom? What if it is contrary to the French principles of egalitie and laicite? Monitoradiation is right, your analysis on this matter is much too simplistic.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm not in favour of banning items of clothing in themselves, whatever they are. The only time when items of clothing should not be allowed are as I said, whenever it's a matter of safety, identification, etc. That can be debated, and I'm not discussing what constitues a matter of safety or identification, etc. because my point is that personal disapproval isn't a reason.

We obviously agree on the safety and identification issue. Which is further than your original statement. I still don't think it goes far enough into the details as that can be said about any kind of clothing, not just for Burqas. But if you refuse to form an opinion or at least post a context that's interesting for discussion, that's your choice. Just don't expect to be taken seriously or considered at all.

Since I've already gotten you to get into SOME detail of what you were talking about, feel free to go back and edit your accusation that everyone here is making things too complicated.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Not all are compelled to wear it, but for those who are, that's their life. It's up to them to make the choice either put up with it, or rebel, or ask for help. And it's up to others to offer help, or not.

The alternative is to just ban it, just in case some people are compelled. That's not a good reason at all. If you take that to its logical conclusion, what you get is the state interfering in people's affairs, and all just in case some people are compelled. People are compelled to do all sorts of things every day of the week. It's called life.

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm not in favour of banning items of clothing in themselves, whatever they are. The only time when items of clothing should not be allowed are as I said, whenever it's a matter of safety, identification, etc. That can be debated, and I'm not discussing what constitues a matter of safety or identification, etc. because my point is that personal disapproval isn't a reason.

We obviously agree on the safety and identification issue. Which is further than your original statement. I still don't think it goes far enough into the details as that can be said about any kind of clothing, not just for Burqas. But if you refuse to form an opinion or at least post a context that's interesting for discussion, that's your choice. Just don't expect to be taken seriously or considered at all.

Since I've already gotten you to get into SOME detail of what you were talking about, feel free to go back and edit your accusation that everyone here is making things too complicated.

Edit to what I said before : It's a figure of speech.