Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

[Aught3]

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

If you don't care enough about what happens to other people then you're right, you wouldn't be interested in supporting this kind of ban. You've got a kind of moral solipsism going, so why would you care whether there is a ban or not? If people are compelled not to wear burqas, well, that's just life.

 

[Worldquest]

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

If you don't care enough about what happens to other people then you're right, you wouldn't be interested in supporting this kind of ban. You've got a kind of moral solipsism going, so why would you care whether there is a ban or not? If people are compelled not to wear burqas, well, that's just life.

Caring about people includes caring about their choices. My objective isn't necesasarily for people to have good things in their life, it's to ensure that they know their choices. After that, as much as I have my own preferences as to what I'd like others to do, it's their choice. I strongly disagree with wearing a burka for the following reasons :

It's a shame for a woman to not display herself physically
It hinders communication
It can create an atmosphere of division

But that's my business. I don't like to impose my preferences on others. And I believe that if someone imposes their preference on someone else, it's between those two people.

 

[monitoradiation]

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

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

Maybe next time you should use figurative speech in an illustrative capacity and not as your argument.

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.

Since your argument is focused on clothing and what we should be allowed to wear, I'll refrain from commenting in general on the Burqa.

Should I be allowed to, If I'm so compelled, to wear a kevlar vest and full body armour to a public park? How about if I wore fake sticks of explosives to the same?

Where do you draw the line between safety, identification, personal choice, and the myriads of other factors that we should consider? How do you judge intention by appearance? And what precautions are you prepared to take?

Should they be banned? Or should I be allowed to walk around like that? When is it okay for the state to interfere with people's affairs (and I would argue that that's what they're for, otherwise they shouldn't exist at all, but that's a separate issue altogether)?

Or is this too "complicated"?

 

[Aught3]

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

If you don't care enough about what happens to other people then you're right, you wouldn't be interested in supporting this kind of ban. You've got a kind of moral solipsism going, so why would you care whether there is a ban or not? If people are compelled not to wear burqas, well, that's just life.

Caring about people includes caring about their choices. My objective isn't necesasarily for people to have good things in their life, it's to ensure that they know their choices. After that, as much as I have my own preferences as to what I'd like others to do, it's their choice. I strongly disagree with wearing a burka for the following reasons :

It's a shame for a woman to not display herself physically
It hinders communication
It can create an atmosphere of division

But that's my business. I don't like to impose my preferences on others. And I believe that if someone imposes their preference on someone else, it's between those two people.

Yes, I understand your position perfectly. I just happen to think that as a society we should have laws, rules, standards, and morals not only for the good of individuals but for the good of society as well. Whether or not we should apply these principles to burqas is being discussed in this thread. I would suggest a more appropriate location for discussion whether they should exist at all can be found here. You're just derailing this thread.

 

[Worldquest]

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

Aught -

You beat me to it, I was about to suggest the same. All I'll say is that freedom is a major issue in this discussion.

 

[Pulsar]

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

I can tell that this is an emotional subject for you since it's clear that you didn't even read my post!

Lol, emotional? I'm very light-hearted about this. It's actually a non-issue to me, but for some reason you jumped on me. I guess we don't understand each other. That seems to happen all the time between us...

Perhaps we should be clear: which senate is this?

The Belgian senate. Similar debates are now being held in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and probably other European countries.

From what I gather from your, posts, you seem to be the emotional one. You coin phrases like 'dictate', 'McCarthyism', 'surveillance state', 'totalitarian government',...
Boy, are you turning a mouse into an elephant! It's a simple rule, based on an agreed principle. How about this: western societies are based on equality of men and women. If some men force their wives to cover their body, doesn't that violate this principle?

My country has 500,000 muslims on a total population of 10 million. Do you know how many protested against the proposed ban? None. Our muslim politicians agreed to it as well. Muslims understand that there are general principles that they and all of us follow, and as it should be in a democracy, they participate to these debates. Most of the time, we get along just fine. Oh, we did get some death threats from the Pakistani branch of Al Qaida. No surprises there
Another example: it's forbidden for muslims to call for prayer from minarets. Minarets only have an ornamental function. Call it religious discrimination, but it's a necessary compromise in order to make it bearable to live together. And the muslims understand that perfectly well, no one has a problem with that.
Switzerland took it one step further and decided to ban the building of new minarets. Something I disagree with, for that matter. But I digress...

This has nothing to do with fear of islam. You on the other hand seem to have a fear of the government. Are you a libertarian? Or are we seeing a distinction between North America and Europe, where Americans tend to be more individualistic than Europeans (I know, another generalization).

 

[youneac]

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

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...

I tend to agree. However, I also have a respect for any law that is established through democratic means, even if I don't agree with it. Personally, I am more bothered by the UN decision to criminalize anything that any religious person might take offense at, as this curtails freedom of speech and is not even democratically established... but that is a different topic.

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.

Again, I was not trying to justify anything, just stating the motivations that, composited, are the drivers behind seeking such legislation. But most importantly we agree on the very dubious tenability of such legislation, much like the Arizona "If it looks like a greaser..." law on illegal immigrants.

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!

Try getting past any bouncer or doorman without showing your hands and you'll find out.

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...

That may be the case in the US and some African and South American countries.

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

Agreed. Main criterion is, or should be, whether something that may be used as a weapon can reasonably be carried for other, legal reasons. (Other than a childish sense of insecurity or a small penis.)

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

There are different types of burqa. The Afghan and Pakistani version, the chadra or "shuttlecock burqa" has a netted fabric covering the eyes. Others leave a slit which leaves the eyes so shaded that they are not really visible.

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

Well, yes, but so are laws against going naked.

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...

Hence my position that "free society" is a contradiction of terms, and a hollow propaganda phrase.

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...

If you'd care to define "freedom" I'd have something tangible to agree with or argue against.

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?

Didn't the Greeks develop a political construct for that?

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

Well, except with some redneck white supremacy groups I guess.
In many European countries holocaust denial is implicitly of explicitly prohibited. For the US, replace the statement denying the holocaust with a picture or statement of explicit and bizarre sexual nature.

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...

LOL I don't believe there are many things that are illegal in Vegas, except counting cards. The fact that that city has not been destroyed by disasters is one of the most prominent pieces of evidence that the god of the christians, the jews and the muslims doesn't exist.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

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

I can tell that this is an emotional subject for you since it's clear that you didn't even read my post!

Lol, emotional? I'm very light-hearted about this. It's actually a non-issue to me, but for some reason you jumped on me. I guess we don't understand each other. That seems to happen all the time between us...

Perhaps we should be clear: which senate is this?

The Belgian senate. Similar debates are now being held in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and probably other European countries.

From what I gather from your, posts, you seem to be the emotional one. You coin phrases like 'dictate', 'McCarthyism', 'surveillance state', 'totalitarian government',...

I never claimed to be unemotional, I only accused you of being so emotional that you failed to read my post. It was the best theory I could come up with at the time. I'm obviously impassioned about the subject but at least I can still read your posts!

Boy, are you turning a mouse into an elephant! It's a simple rule, based on an agreed principle. How about this: western societies are based on equality of men and women. If some men force their wives to cover their body, doesn't that violate this principle?

If the problem is that men are forcing women to wear burkhas then shouldn't the law to fight this be that you can't force other people to wear burkhas? Actually, since (depending on which country you reside, apparently) you already have the right to wear whatever you like, this should be a non-issue!

People are given freedom of choice but there's nothing we can legally do to remove the consequences of our choices. Women are already free to not wear the burkha but if they're from muslim families, they may disapprove and there's no legislation that can change that. The affected women may wish to avoid this disapproval and there's no legislation that can change that either. As people, we can try to reason with these muslims and offer them social support but how can we conscientiously ban harmless garments?

How about the women who wish to wear the burkha? Not all women find it repressing and many even find it liberating! Aren't you stomping all over their rights? Damn right you are!

My country has 500,000 muslims on a total population of 10 million. Do you know how many protested against the proposed ban? None. Our muslim politicians agreed to it as well. Muslims understand that there are general principles that they and all of us follow, and as it should be in a democracy, they participate to these debates. Most of the time, we get along just fine. Oh, we did get some death threats from the Pakistani branch of Al Qaida. No surprises there
Another example: it's forbidden for muslims to call for prayer from minarets. Minarets only have an ornamental function. Call it religious discrimination, but it's a necessary compromise in order to make it bearable to live together. And the muslims understand that perfectly well, no one has a problem with that.
Switzerland took it one step further and decided to ban the building of new minarets. Something I disagree with, for that matter. But I digress...

I can't speak to what the muslims in your country think or feel but I can see that it is a chip off the civil liberties of the people in said countries...

I'm curious to know what their reaction was at these "debates." Was their attitude "it's okay if we ban burkhas, we never liked them anyway..." What were they debating over?

How was forbidding prayer in minarets a "compromise in order to make it bearable to live together?" How was living together unbearable before?

Whether people are objecting to the law is irrelevant. I would be just as impassioned if we were talking about a ban of the word esurient even though no one uses that word anymore. Perhaps I'd even be more involved since I hate religion in general and Islam in particular. It's the principle of the whole thing. How can a government have that much power?

This has nothing to do with fear of islam. You on the other hand seem to have a fear of the government. Are you a libertarian? Or are we seeing a distinction between North America and Europe, where Americans tend to be more individualistic than Europeans (I know, another generalization).

I think it's far more the latter than the former. Just because something's a generalization doesn't mean it's not generally true...

I sometimes call myself a libertarian to get a response from people but if a libertarian were to learn of my political views, they'd object to my labeling myself as such. I just strongly value liberty as should everyone who lives in the western world. I'm quite surprised by the differences between North America and Europe in this regard. I can only assume that I've been hanging around too many North American web forums...

I do have a fear of government and I think we all should fear them. If you let them go unchecked I guarantee you that they will grow corrupt and run amok! The only cure for this is incessant vigilance. Never give them an inch 'cause they will take a mile!

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

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

I tend to agree. However, I also have a respect for any law that is established through democratic means, even if I don't agree with it. Personally, I am more bothered by the UN decision to criminalize anything that any religious person might take offense at, as this curtails freedom of speech and is not even democratically established... but that is a different topic.

I disagree with you on the point about respecting democratic decisions (depending on what you mean by "respect"). The war in Iraq was democratic. Did you support that? Do you "respect" it?

While I am also bothered by various UN resolutions, I don't fear them anymore than I fear NAMBLA 'cause they're both completely impotent. There's nothing binding about these resolutions so they're meaningless except to indicate the political climate of other countries...

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!

Try getting past any bouncer or doorman without showing your hands and you'll find out.

I'm pretty sure I have walked past bouncers without showing my hands. After all, I don't have to hide things in my hands, I could hide them anywhere on my person...

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...

That may be the case in the US and some African and South American countries.

I'm not allowed to carry a pocket knife in Europe?

You very likely have a collection of very dangerous knives in your kitchen. How did you get them there from the knife store?

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

Agreed. Main criterion is, or should be, whether something that may be used as a weapon can reasonably be carried for other, legal reasons. (Other than a childish sense of insecurity or a small penis.)

That we are in agreement here is the cause for my surprise in our disagreement elsewhere. As stupid as religion is, it's a perfectly legal reason for wanting to wear a burkha...

Hence my position that "free society" is a contradiction of terms, and a hollow propaganda phrase.

Unqualified "omnipotence" is contradictory in exactly the same way but I doubt you'd object to anyone's use of the term. In context, it has meaning. I suspect that you're calling it "hollow" because you're anticipating a libertarian stance to the issue from me...

If you'd care to define "freedom" I'd have something tangible to agree with or argue against.

How about choice of action? The less choices I have of what I may do, the less freedom I have. How does that work for you?

I don't think the issue here is really our meaning of the word "freedom." I think you're preparing for a defense against a position of libertarianism or anarchy, both of which are positions I have no intention of taking...

I'm not advocating anarchy, I just don't think a government should be able to so easily remove the freedoms of its citizenry. We're talking about what kind of clothing people may wear! It's not like we're talking about strapping nuclear bombs on people's backs. It's a piece of fucking cloth!

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?

Didn't the Greeks develop a political construct for that?

That's not really an answer to my question. Yes, there are many ways to arbitrarily determine whose aesthetics we enforce. The system "just enforce my aesthetics" also resolves the issue... only to create more. Do you not fear the tyranny of the majority? I had thought that all western countries had some provisions against this but I'm guessing they're not quite as strong in Europe...

In many European countries holocaust denial is implicitly of explicitly prohibited. For the US, replace the statement denying the holocaust with a picture or statement of explicit and bizarre sexual nature.

They're not really equivalent. The curious exception to free speech that is obscenity is defined by the community and is not universal. You'll see that it is even less so if you do a Google search for american porn. The dissemination of content of an "explicit and bizarre sexual nature" is very much protected free speech. You just can't do it too publicly...

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...

LOL I don't believe there are many things that are illegal in Vegas, except counting cards. The fact that that city has not been destroyed by disasters is one of the most prominent pieces of evidence that the god of the christians, the jews and the muslims doesn't exist.

Hey, you'll be surprised to hear that despite how prostitution is perfectly legal in the state of Nevada, it is explicitly illegal in the city of Las Vegas!

 

[youneac]

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

I disagree with you on the point about respecting democratic decisions (depending on what you mean by "respect"). The war in Iraq was democratic. Did you support that? Do you "respect" it?

I don't think anybody in Iraq voted for that war, so I can't respect that. As for the aggressor... the US stopped being a democracy long ago, when the banks were allowed to cause the 1930's recession and as a reward were given even more power.

I'm pretty sure I have walked past bouncers without showing my hands. After all, I don't have to hide things in my hands, I could hide them anywhere on my person...

All trained security staff have learned to look for eyes, hands and bulges. But this is instinctively within us. Look at how kids already know what's going to happen when Tom approaches Jerry with one hand/claw behind his back.

I'm not allowed to carry a pocket knife in Europe?

You definitely won't get it onto an airplane (legally). Small folding knives without a blade lock are permitted in most European countries, as they obviously have many peaceful purposes.
Are you allowed to carry a machete into downtown New York?

You very likely have a collection of very dangerous knives in your kitchen. How did you get them there from the knife store?

Transportation with purpose is mostly allowed. E.g. in The Netherlands you're allowed to have a baseball bat in your car if you're moving to/from a game or training, but in all other cases it's technically illegal.

That we are in agreement here is the cause for my surprise in our disagreement elsewhere. As stupid as religion is, it's a perfectly legal reason for wanting to wear a burkha...

Religion is also a reason for discrimination, suicide, self-mutilation, even murder, yet we tend to prevent people from doing those things. People should be free to do what they like for their religion, but they should not expect or demand exemption for it.

On freedom:

Unqualified "omnipotence" is contradictory in exactly the same way but I doubt you'd object to anyone's use of the term. In context, it has meaning. I suspect that you're calling it "hollow" because you're anticipating a libertarian stance to the issue from me...

I don't think labels. I merely resent the phrase because it is self-contradicting ideology and mostly used by hypocrites (generally speaking). Remember that the phrase was embedded in your anthem just after the slaughtering of most native americans, and while slavery was still commonplace.

How about choice of action? The less choices I have of what I may do, the less freedom I have. How does that work for you?

Sounds fair. It also implies that any law restricting potential choices is an infringement on freedom. Since I can't see any society operate without laws, I maintain that freedom is a mirage.

I don't think the issue here is really our meaning of the word "freedom." I think you're preparing for a defense against a position of libertarianism or anarchy, both of which are positions I have no intention of taking...

No, it's just that US Americans are so indoctrinated with that phrase.

I'm not advocating anarchy, I just don't think a government should be able to so easily remove the freedoms of its citizenry. We're talking about what kind of clothing people may wear! It's not like we're talking about strapping nuclear bombs on people's backs. It's a piece of fucking cloth!

The purpose of a government is to maintain and improve society. That requires choices between personal and collective stakes. If these choices are made through (really) democratic means, that is acceptable to me. After all, we're not asking people to amputate their limbs or anything, it's just a fucking piece of cloth!

Yes, there are many ways to arbitrarily determine whose aesthetics we enforce. The system "just enforce my aesthetics" also resolves the issue... only to create more. Do you not fear the tyranny of the majority? I had thought that all western countries had some provisions against this but I'm guessing they're not quite as strong in Europe...

Europe is in the phase of discovering its identity. With internal borders opening up, and a continuing huge influx of immigrants from outside the EU, society becomes more polarized. Citizens are concerned of their local/country identity disappearing, hence become more vigilant in clinging to it.

In many European countries holocaust denial is implicitly of explicitly prohibited. For the US, replace the statement denying the holocaust with a picture or statement of explicit and bizarre sexual nature.

They're not really equivalent. The curious exception to free speech that is obscenity is defined by the community and is not universal. You'll see that it is even less so if you do a Google search for american porn. The dissemination of content of an "explicit and bizarre sexual nature" is very much protected free speech. You just can't do it too publicly...

Well, we were discussing laws applying to public space to begin with. Personally, I'd have less problems with someone wearing a t-shirt in public stating his/her sexual preferences than one that entices bigotry or violence.

Hey, you'll be surprised to hear that despite how prostitution is perfectly legal in the state of Nevada, it is explicitly illegal in the city of Las Vegas!

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? Just like counting cards, prostitution has a negative impact on casino profits.

 

[kenandkids]

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

I'm a little shocked at the lack of debating skills being shown here. Non sequiters seem to be carrying the day with bullshit coming in a close second.

I think my favourite piece of irrelevant nonsense was equating wearing dynamite with clothing...
Although comparing a mini-blade or pen-knife to a machete was pretty funny too.

I think that it's sad how many of you want to forbid women the ability to appear in public. While it will probably be more comfortable to not have to see a burka at the market, there is a woman under it that is only allowed out provided she wear the covering. This is assuming your own argument. If it is a matter of "the woman is forced to wear it so we'll pass a law forbidding it" you haven't helped her in the least, you have guaranteed that she will be both figuratively hidden and TRULY hidden. Why do you want to help women by making them prisoners? Especially considering that the only way for the woman to consider throwing off her shackles is by seeing other women that are not under the same restrictions and gain strength from this.
Congratulations on your campaign to keep abused and marginalised women captive and invisible, it appears to be catching on!

 

[monitoradiation]

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

I'm a little shocked at the lack of debating skills being shown here. Non sequiters seem to be carrying the day with bullshit coming in a close second.

I think my favourite piece of irrelevant nonsense was equating wearing dynamite with clothing...
Although comparing a mini-blade or pen-knife to a machete was pretty funny too.

I'm a little shocked at the lack of reading comprehension as well as the smug condescension shown by the author of this bullshit post.

I think my favourite piece of irrelevant nonsense was false-equivocation of equating dynamite to clothing.
Although the pointing out of non-sequitors without identifying which ones was pretty funny too.

/sarcasm

By the way. The false-equivocation you've made missed the point, as the argument was to question why the same touted "freedom of expression" isnt being applied to everything that can potentially be worn. You've made an assumption that a strap of dynamite cannot be a piece of clothing as its function is not to cover the body, neglecting that it was stated that it is a FAKE stick of dynamite designed to provoke. It is harmless, but for all appearances looks like one that could detonate.

 

[Andiferous]

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

If they look like real dynamite, and people can't tell the difference, then it is a problem. Not because of his fashion sense, or because of his indecency, mind you. It's because this person is flashing around a dangerous weapon, and (especially in the current climate), this is going to attract some attention. Criminals do use fake weapons for robberies and threaten other people; this is still illegal. And if wearing a fake dynamite shirt gets you arrested, it's because people are terrified of terrorists.

What would be the reason for banning nudity? Indecency.
What would the impetus for banning a fake dynamite shirt? Security.
What is the reason for Banning the Bhurka? Only where it infringes on either of the other two.

 

[DavidB]

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

Ban Islam....right....should be just ban free thought and expression at the same time then?

Banning Islam is not the same as banning free thought and expression, and you know it. Islam is the antithesis to free thought and expression and as long as people like you think that it can be entertained in such a fashion as equivalent to free thought and expression, it will continue to use our free thought and expression against us, as it has proven to, time and time again.

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.

I wish for Islam to be banned in my country, I never said that it could not be practised some place else, which it is. I think 50 odd Islamic states is probably sufficient, don't you think? I see no reason why I cannot live in society devoid of Islam.

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.

No, it is worse than absurdum, it is religious apologetics.

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.

Good, then we will have a legitimate reason to incarcerate and deport.

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 racist and as bigoted as Islam?

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.

No, ban Islam and when it proves itself to be an ideology worthy of being accepted into a modern western democracy, which it has already proven it cannot, we may consider unbanning it.

 

[nasher168]

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

As racist and as bigoted as Islam?

Yes.
In fact I would go as far to say that they're worse. Islam's teachings might be bad, but Muslims themselves tend to be nice people and disregard the majority of the teachings. The BNP's supporters, on the other hand, are almost universally bigoted arseholes.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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

As racist and as bigoted as Islam?

Yes.
In fact I would go as far to say that they're worse. Islam's teachings might be bad, but Muslims themselves tend to be nice people and disregard the majority of the teachings. The BNP's supporters, on the other hand, are almost universally bigoted arseholes.

Yep, more bigoted and racist than Islam. Most Muslims are neither bigots nor racists, are Muslims by birth and heritage, and are probably as extremist as your average Christian or Jew in the same situation. Just about every BNP member joins up specifically to let their bigot flag fly amongst fellow racists.

It's like this: the Catholic Church contains pedophile priests, but the point of the organization isn't pedophilia, and 99.999% of Cathollcs are normal folks. NAMBLA contains 100% pedophiles, and pedophilia is the purpose for getting together. The Muslim religion contains violent bigots and racists, but the point of the religion isn't bigotry or racism, and 99.999% of Muslims are normal folks. BNP looks a lot like the NAMBLA of anti-immigrant racist assholes.

 

[Worldquest]

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

David B -

Banning any religion is exactly like banning free thought and expression because religion is an opinion, a view, a thought, and it gets expressed. If you ban a religion, you are banning someone from having certain thoughts, and expressing them. That's the whole point of a religion, to have a thought about something, and then to express that. If you don't like the thought or the expression, that's your business.

And if you actually tried to ban a religion, you'd find that you'd be doing exactly the same as you would if you were trying to ban any thought or expression. How would you do it? You'd either tell people not to have those thoughts or to express them, or you'd try to prevent them from doing so. How is that any different to banning any type of free thought or expression? Isn't it just a case of you wanting everyone to have only those thoughts that you approve of, and using non arguments to justify that?

50 odd islamic states is sufficient? How did you come up with that figure and who are you to decide that anyway? And besides, didn't you want to ban it in the first place? Make your mind up, either you want to control other people's thoughts or you don't.

"Good, then we will have a legitimate reason to incarcerate and deport." - There's your true colours right there.

 

[theatheistguy]

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

Banning Islam is not the same as banning free thought and expression, and you know it.

You're right, my apologies, it's just banning specific free thought and expression that you disagree with. Short of inciting or enacting violence or hatred, all forms of expression and thought should be allowed. Even if some of those are reading from the same book as the extremists.

Islam is the antithesis to free thought and expression

I agree, however, as has been stated already, Muslims are like everyone else in that they're hypocritical and will pick and choose from their religious text.

as long as people like you think that it can be entertained in such a fashion as equivalent to free thought and expression, it will continue to use our free thought and expression against us, as it has proven to, time and time again.

No, so long as 'people like you' just see something you don't like and therefore throw a fit and try to ban it, religion will always have something to rail against, claiming to be persecuted and gain sympathy from bleeding hear liberals.

I wish for Islam to be banned in my country, I never said that it could not be practised some place else, which it is. I think 50 odd Islamic states is probably sufficient, don't you think? I see no reason why I cannot live in society devoid of Islam.

Why should Islam be banned and not Christianity or Judaism or indeed atheism? And are you banning the religion or the religious? What exactly would you ban?

No, it is worse than absurdum, it is religious apologetics.

Ha! Please. I have not excused religion everything, I hold it accountable for everything it has done, however, I'm not so blind as to forget that nationalism and greed have fucked up also.

Good, then we will have a legitimate reason to incarcerate and deport.

Again, who is being arrested and why? The believers? Why not a different type of believer? And for what reason? Surely this is the very definition of fascism.

As racist and as bigoted as Islam?

Islam, perhaps not, Muslims, yes, much more than Muslims.

No, ban Islam and when it proves itself to be an ideology worthy of being accepted into a modern western democracy, which it has already proven it cannot, we may consider unbanning it.

So ban everything till it curtails itself to your standards? How accepting of you. If you want to talk about banning literal interpretations of holy texts, fine, I'm all with you, lets ban a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, the Holy Bible, the Torah, etc, they're all horrific, however, lets not arrest people who associate themselves with these texts, however distant, and certainly not only the followers of one specific text.

 

[skepticaltuber]

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

The reason the Bhurka should be banned is purely because it is a security issue. For the same reason, we don't allow people to wear ski masks everywhere they go. It is a religious symbol, but it's also a disguise and a potential security threat.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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

The reason the Bhurka should be banned is purely because it is a security issue. For the same reason, we don't allow people to wear ski masks everywhere they go. It is a religious symbol, but it's also a disguise and a potential security threat.

Right, the same way we ban the nun's habit... and wait, people ARE allowed to wear ski masks everywhere. :facepalm:

It isn't a security issue, it is a cultural bigotry issue.