British public back a ban on burqa by two to one, poll finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50988587]Knives aren't a fashion statement, though. As I said, it's a question of social utility. Carrying a knife for fashionable purposes provides no social benefit, whereas carrying one for work (or indeed transporting a knife from A to B) does - it allows you to do your job, and both are legal. It's not necessarily picking a side, it's just allowing religious reasons to be considered a valid reason to carry a certain item - disguising your face in public is entirely legal, except during a protest (and the police are allowed to ask you to remove religious headwear during such protests). You're allowed to wear a balaclava in public if you want to, and you're allowed to wear a burka if you want to. There are no defences for carrying a nuclear bomb on the street - there are defences to carrying knives. Religious observance is one of them. There are no defences to beating a child (barring what's called 'lawful chastisement', available to anyone). Your example doesn't compare like with like.[/QUOTE] Either i don't understand your argument or you have a massive cognitive disconnect. Fashion choices are just as valid as religious convictions in a secular society... that's the point, not benefiting religion over anything.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50999505]Either i don't understand your argument or you have a massive cognitive disconnect. Fashion choices are just as valid as religious convictions in a secular society... that's the point, not benefiting religion over anything.[/QUOTE] Religious convictions are more deeply held than fashion choices - and also nobody wears knives for fashionable reasons.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51000053]and also nobody wears knives for fashionable reasons.[/QUOTE] We don't, but we totally should. Can't wait until Ulankas and cavalry sabres make a comeback.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51000053]Religious convictions are more deeply held than fashion choices - and also nobody wears knives for fashionable reasons.[/QUOTE] thats quite an assumption to base legislation on... you shoudnt base legality on "how bad people want something" either way... also knives are totally fashionable, just look at some of the Emirates, where daggers are worn as fashion statements. (and where the religious practice evolved out of) Perhaps i should give some more clear cut examples though... genital mutilation on children... even for religious reasons why is that not illegal in the entirety of the western world?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51000284]thats quite an assumption to base legislation on... either way you shoudnt base legality on "how bad people want something" either way... also knives are totally fashionable, just look at some of the Emirates, where daggers are worn as fashion statements. (and where the religious practice evolved out of) Perhaps i should give some more clear cut examples though... genital mutilation on children... even for religious reasons why is that not illegal in the entirety of the western world?[/QUOTE] I think you're a bit mistaken. The religious practice of wearing daggers comes from India and is a Sikh tradition, not an Islamic one. I've also never heard of Arabs wearing daggers as fashion pieces and nowhere in my (admittedly brief) research could I find any evidence of it. Secondly, I'm not talking about 'how bad people want it', I'm talking about social utility. I won't waste your time or mine by explaining it again. Genital mutilation (I assume you mean circumcision rather than FGM, which IS illegal) - that's legal because parents are the legal 'owners' of their children until they come of age, and the state has no business interfering with what parents do with their children insofar as it causes no irreparable and serious damage. I don't know a lot about circumcision - I know it's pretty routine in America but not in Britain, but I don't know if it's detrimental in any meaningful way in the same way as FGM.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51000488]I think you're a bit mistaken. The religious practice of wearing daggers comes from India and is a Sikh tradition, not an Islamic one. I've also never heard of Arabs wearing daggers as fashion pieces and nowhere in my (admittedly brief) research could I find any evidence of it. Secondly, I'm not talking about 'how bad people want it', I'm talking about social utility. I won't waste your time or mine by explaining it again. [/QUOTE] Janbiya, also spelled janbia, jambiya, and jambia (Arabic: جنبية‎‎ janbīyah), is the Arabic term for dagger, but it is generally used to describe a specific type of dagger with a short curved blade and a medial ridge. [B]Men typically above the age of 14 wear it as an accessory to their clothing.[/B] In Oman the janbiya is commonly referred to as a khanjar. [QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51000488]Genital mutilation (I assume you mean circumcision rather than FGM, which IS illegal) - that's legal because parents are the legal 'owners' of their children until they come of age, and the state has no business interfering with what parents do with their children insofar as it causes no irreparable and serious damage. I don't know a lot about circumcision - I know it's pretty routine in America but not in Britain, but I don't know if it's detrimental in any meaningful way in the same way as FGM. [/QUOTE] I typed a pretty big diatribe about how mgm is not only damaging to the child it is straight up child abuse, and how the extremities of it like skinning the penis from shaft to pubic bone do happen on occasion and are legal to a degree and how that is not at all how a secular society should treat these, but it went off far too of topic for even my tastes. [B]Children are not property of the parents to own, they are not something the parents can treat willy nilly, see child protective services and the legal protection children enjoy.[/B]

[QUOTE=Streecer;50983020]so to you "secular" is the government interfering in peoples right to practice and express their religious beliefs? would you support a ban on crosses in public too?[/QUOTE] There's still limits to secularism though. Freedom of religion and a goverment's interference with religion must end/start where a religion breaks existing laws or infringes on rights or harms other people. If you practiced the ancient mayan religion, you have every right to do so, but as soon as you start trying to sacrifice people to make the sun come up, noodody's going to say "yeah but he has freedom to practice his religion!" at your murder trial Likewise, if you refuse to shed your Niqab in court, or if a cop stops you and you refuse to remove it, that is genuinely a crime, and not excusable by your right to religious practice. For example a judge in germany who had a woman on the stand refuse to remove her Niquab, and he simply failed to recognize that there was a witness on the stand because the court couldn't "identify" her, which frankly i find perfectly reasonable. That said though, they have every right to wear it in non official circumstances, so I think saying "BAN THE THING" is petty and won't accomplish anything. I expect it will only further the ostracizing of muslim folks who would otherwise be happy to assimilate, and fails to adress the actual root cause of radicalization. This is just a reflexive kick by the populace with no real function or understanding of the consequences.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51000725]Janbiya, also spelled janbia, jambiya, and jambia (Arabic: جنبية‎‎ janbīyah), is the Arabic term for dagger, but it is generally used to describe a specific type of dagger with a short curved blade and a medial ridge. [B]Men typically above the age of 14 wear it as an accessory to their clothing.[/B] In Oman the janbiya is commonly referred to as a khanjar.[/quote] I guess that would come under the protection of 'part of a national costume' in the same way that sgian dubh do for Scots. [quote]I typed a pretty big diatribe about how mgm is not only damaging to the child it is straight up child abuse, and how the extremities of it like skinning the penis from shaft to pubic bone do happen on occasion and are legal to a degree and how that is not at all how a secular society should treat these, but it went off far too of topic for even my tastes. [B]Children are not property of the parents to own, they are not something the parents can treat willy nilly, see child protective services and the legal protection children enjoy.[/B][/QUOTE] Honestly I don't know enough about circumcision to discuss it with you, but regarding your bonded point I'll just say that parents DO have responsibility and thus 'ownership' over their children but that responsibility means they can't do anything to harm the child (they choose what clothes they wear, how their hair is cut, what they eat, etc; things children can't decide for themselves). Whether or not circumcision falls under that bracket I guess is up for debate - but I can see a religious and cultural utility to it. But as you said, this doesn't really address the topic of banning the burka, which I still maintain is s harmless garment that a secular society has no reason to outlaw.

If we ban the Burqa, then why can't we ban nuns' headwear, too? Oh yeah, we can't do that, because that would be FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51001184]I guess that would come under the protection of 'part of a national costume' in the same way that sgian dubh do for Scots. [/Quote] So... Favouritism? Why is it so hard to have things either be legal for anyone or illegal for everyone?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51004319]So... Favouritism? Why is it so hard to have things either be legal for anyone or illegal for everyone?[/QUOTE] Because of social utility and the general stupidity of blanket legislation. If carrying knives was always illegal for everybody, people wearing Scottish national dress to their wedding would be arrested. Reenactors would be arrested. People going to work with boxcutters would be arrested. If I went to a kitchen suppliers and bought a carving knife, or if I bought an x-acto knife from a hobby shop, I'd be arrested. Surely you can see why this isnt favouritism and is actually quite sensible? [editline]5th September 2016[/editline] Not to mention that it's not favouritism because if it's that important for you to carry a knife, you can wear a kilt, you can convert to Sikhism or become a chef

What the hell is up with the boner for defending the niqab and burqa here? Wearing either in western nations is either dumb or alarming. Clothing etiquette created by fanatic religious dogma and forced by either physical or psychological violence. While muslim women in western countries don't get whiplashes for breaking the clothing conduct; they can very likely get ostracized by their community.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;51005742]What the hell is up with the boner for defending the niqab and burqa here? Wearing either in western nations is either dumb or alarming. Clothing etiquette created by fanatic religious dogma and forced by either physical or psychological violence. While muslim women in western countries don't get whiplashes for breaking the clothing conduct; they can very likely get ostracized by their community.[/QUOTE] And you don't see the issue in criminalizing the women for following this etiquette wether it be for cultural or personal reasons?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51005859]And you don't see the issue in criminalizing the women for following this etiquette wether it be for cultural or personal reasons?[/QUOTE] you'd have to be crazy to defend the niqab.

[QUOTE=Bobie;51006057]you'd have to be crazy to defend the niqab.[/QUOTE] Sure, but you'd have to be much crazier to think banning it is helping anyone.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;51005742]What the hell is up with the boner for defending the niqab and burqa here? Wearing either in western nations is either dumb or alarming. Clothing etiquette created by fanatic religious dogma and forced by either physical or psychological violence. While muslim women in western countries don't get whiplashes for breaking the clothing conduct; they can very likely get ostracized by their community.[/QUOTE] Does banning it free these women? Does it cause them to face less oppression?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51006165]Sure, but you'd have to be much crazier to think banning it is helping anyone.[/QUOTE] its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;51005742]What the hell is up with the boner for defending the niqab and burqa here? Wearing either in western nations is either dumb or alarming. Clothing etiquette created by fanatic religious dogma and forced by either physical or psychological violence. While muslim women in western countries don't get whiplashes for breaking the clothing conduct; they can very likely get ostracized by their community.[/QUOTE] i have lost count for how many times I and many others have debunked these points. [B]Please. Read. The. Thread.[/B] [QUOTE]forced by either physical or psychological violence.[/QUOTE] You are completely ignoring the many women who wear it by choice. believe it or not, women are capable of being independent people who can make their own decisions. [QUOTE=Bobie;51006232]its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.[/QUOTE] says who? do you have any evidence for this claim that banning harmless customs actually fixes things. Before either of you reply, please go through the whole thread to make sure your point wasn't already disproved prior

[QUOTE=Bobie;51006232]its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.[/QUOTE] That's a big assertion to rest on an assumption. I'm not defending it. I'm against invasive legislation, and I think it's even harmful to your goals in this context.

[QUOTE=Bobie;51006232]its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983173]Burqas are religious garments, not "political uniforms." You guys don't seem to have [i]any[/i] problem with nuns and monks and Christian churches wearing religious garb. Why is that?[/QUOTE] Beacause you can still see their faces.

[QUOTE=Bobie;51006232]its a long term decision, future generations would thank us for it.[/QUOTE] It's a pity you can't rate posts funny in SH anymore because this is one of the funniest things i've read in a good while. Assuming that things go the way you predicted, and future generations are thankful about that decision, what guarantee do you have that nothing will go badly wrong because of this in the present? forcing people to give up something they are voluntarily doing and see nothing wrong in following will without exception led only to conflicts. There is a growing number of Muslim women, and even Muslim men, who don't bind themselves as strictly to their dress codes and religious restrictions than their counterparts do, just like many Christians today are practically Christian in name only and perform just lip service to their religions. If you want people to change their outlook, instead of forcing them, educate them and allow them to make their own choices, and then seamless integration with the existing society occurs without the need for conflict. Unfortunately this is never 100% the case because people are stupid and always dislike or hate what they don't understand, or can't see the reasons why people do certain things. Forcible integration is no better than a tyranny, and once you try that, you're no better than the Muslims who use religion for their own ends when it comes to terrorism.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50983013]I struggle to imagine that 78% of 65 year olds are so passionate about identity politics and women's rights that they'd support banning an article of clothing[/QUOTE] Actually, isn't banning an article of clothing for women the exact opposite of women's rights?

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51005097]Because of social utility and the general stupidity of blanket legislation. If carrying knives was always illegal for everybody, people wearing Scottish national dress to their wedding would be arrested. Reenactors would be arrested. People going to work with boxcutters would be arrested. If I went to a kitchen suppliers and bought a carving knife, or if I bought an x-acto knife from a hobby shop, I'd be arrested. Surely you can see why this isnt favouritism and is actually quite sensible? [editline]5th September 2016[/editline] Not to mention that it's not favouritism because if it's that important for you to carry a knife, you can wear a kilt, [B]you can convert to Sikhism[/B] or become a chef[/QUOTE] even if the others are, the bold reason is not a reason to break the law in a secular society... no favouritism of one religion over another or none

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51007597]even if the others are, the bold reason is not a reason to break the law in a secular society... no favouritism of one religion over another or none[/QUOTE] Lol, the literal definition of a secular society says that there should be complete religious freedom, and beliefs should not be subject to legal or social sanctions. That includes wearing a knife as part of your religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51007620]Lol, the literal definition of a secular society says that there should be complete religious freedom, and beliefs should not be subject to legal or social sanctions. That includes wearing a knife as part of your religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] That's the Indian definition of secularism, though. In the West it's long had the connotation of a nonreligious government that enacts laws in the interests of the welfare of its people without favoring any religion over another.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51007628]That's the Indian definition of secularism, though. In the West it's long had the connotation of a nonreligious government that enacts laws in the interests of the welfare of its people without favoring any religion over another.[/QUOTE] In fairness though it's perfectly legal for a Sikh to wear their Kirpan in the UK under the criminal justice act of 1988, because it's an integral part of their religion (part of the 5 K's they have to observe)

[QUOTE=James xX;50983019]I'm one of the least racist people you'll meet, and while I'm perfectly fine with people wearing what they want in their own time, in public you should remain as secular as possible. Add onto that the fact that conceiling your faces can only add to fears people have, I support this move.[/QUOTE] What part about banning x clothing is secular??

[QUOTE=archangel125;51007568]Actually, isn't banning an article of clothing for women the exact opposite of women's rights?[/QUOTE] Absolutely, but there are those who say banning the burqa is a Great Leap Forward for the emancipation of Muslim women. I was responding to them.

[QUOTE=Gizmodo456;50983079]Where is your evidence that Muslim women are trying to hide their identity. If that was true they wouldn't be able to have a conversation or use a credit card etc. The whole argumentis flawed. You can't identify them so you assume they are hiding something sinister. I don't understand why people feel so threatened and cowered by women covering their faces. It's just bonkers.[/QUOTE] the idea is that a criminal would wear them or a wanted person, pretty fucking obviously, I might add.