More than half of Britons want to ban the burqa

[Hermit]

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/w ... report.pdf

Care to comment on that report? It's been discussed in this thread and that one over a year ago, by the way.

[Rum]

R.E. the OP. As an old friend of mine was fond of saying - 'a million flies eat shit - but would you want to be one'?

The burqa is not a good thing - not remotely, but banning it is not a good thing either - remotely.

[Brian Peacock]

You don't bring anyone round to your way of thinking by telling them what the can and can't wear. It didn't work for my parents and it won't work for Britain.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just make it bloody awkward.

[JimC]

I think there is a valid security concern about any item of apparel that fully covers the face.

[pErvinalia]

You don't bring anyone round to your way of thinking by telling them what the can and can't wear. It didn't work for my parents and it won't work for Britain.

Rationality has no place amongst the morally outraged.

[rainbow]

I think there is a valid security concern about any item of apparel that fully covers the face.

Not really. I'd guess that anyone covering their face is likely to attract attention and possibly be suspect in Western countries.

If one were up to no good, the last thing to do is look suspicious. Don't you agree?

[JimC]

Not if the wearing of a facial covering is protected by the political correctness police...

[rainbow]

Not if the wearing of a facial covering is protected by the political correctness police...

Yes of course. Racial profiling doesn't exist.
I forgot.

[Brian Peacock]

OK. Let's imagine we've banned the burka. So what's changed?
Are we more secure? Are women less oppressed? Are fabric retailers and seamstresses going to the wall? Basically, who feels the benefit of this?

[JimC]

At least fundamentalist Islam would receive a message that their oppression of women is unacceptable in western society. If they want their slaves wives to wear burqas, then stay in medieval societies...

[Brian Peacock]

So the benefit here is simply signalling our collective moral disapproval?

Now I'm all for encouraging society to view religion as a private matter, and if Muslims or any other religiousista want to follow their religion in the privacy of their own homes then that's fine by me. But does the burqua bring their religion into the public square any more than, say, wearing a crucifix, popping one of those silly fish stickers on the back of your car, or sporting dreadlocks?

[JimC]

I think it brings a lot more. When we interact with people in person, a view of their face is pretty vital. The burqa is a clear statement of sexual oppression, not a mere symbol like wearing a cross or even a hijab. Now, I admit that it being a much more oppressive is not an automatic argument for a ban, which I realise brings issues of personal freedom and the limits of state authority, but I would still vote for a ban...

Additionally, there is the security issue.

[DaveDodo007]

So the benefit here is simply signalling our collective moral disapproval?

Now I'm all for encouraging society to view religion as a private matter, and if Muslims or any other religiousista want to follow their religion in the privacy of their own homes then that's fine by me. But does the burqua bring their religion into the public square any more than, say, wearing a crucifix, popping one of those silly fish stickers on the back of your car, or sporting dreadlocks?

Lol and fucking lol. Brian (feminist) Peacock says/types "But does the burqua bring their religion into the public square any more than, say, wearing a crucifix, popping one of those silly fish stickers on the back of your car, or sporting dreadlocks?" Could you have a more false equivalence. Did you seriously type this and thought 'well that was a good/nounce argument by me.' Wearing a black sack is totally the same as having a necklace or bumper sticker, really.
I'm always being called out for calling lefty/liberals mentally ill (and BTW I'm a misogynist/sexist) whilst I have to put up with lefty/liberals defending an ideology which women are at best second class people and worse chattel. In some ways I quite admire Islam for their uncompromising attitude to women's rights because they know lefty/liberal SJW/feminists faggots are too cowardly to challenge them. They throw homosexuals from building (or hang them), stone women to death for being raped and kill atheists.

Islam is great for showing feminists are full of shit, the schadenfreude is glorious. The dilemma from me is where is the critical mass and how will I/we avoid it? I mean when it comes to Beer, Bacon and bikinis (the three B's) when do I draw the line. We are still at the point where I can sit on the side lines and have a good laugh. After all I didn't create the progressive stack were the muslims sit on the top and will kill or oppress all the ones below them. Lol. Still let the muslims have their fun as long as they don't turn on us white males because then it becomes 'Deus Vult II' and their homeland is turned into glass.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't know how you got all that from what I said but you could try articulating your concerns about the fashion choices of Muslim women with a bit more than trite he-said-she-said contrarianisms. Whether you will try or not is another matter.

Rastafarianism is an inherently sexist faith. Christianity is morbidly bigoted on so many issues, from a woman's right to have dominion over her own body to acknowledgement of LGBT rights, and more. So why must we take the burkah to be a more serious or profound talisman of religious adherence than any other religious talisman, whether that be a crucifix, a bumper stick, a haircut, a hat, or ritual tattooing - and why is that particularly problematic?