(September 15, 2010 at 7:09 am)solja247 Wrote: I dont see why people are opposed to it?
I think it is because secular people are afraid of an Islamic Europe...

If I can't wear a mask why can they? >:[

Its partly about security, at least one known terrorist has tried to escape by wearing one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6378863.stm

They are a very effective disguise and in this time of hightened security, when I cant wear a hoodie down my local supermaket because it obscures my face, then they should be banned from public areas.

Its also about perception and intimidation, I'd feel uncomforatble if I was surrounded by a gaggle of nuns and they arent members of a religion that regularly blow themselves up to kill as many people as possible.
I know not all burka wearing women do that but some do.

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=25383

(September 15, 2010 at 12:01 am)lrh9 Wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39175408/ns/...ws-europe/

The article is misleading, it gives the impression that the law specifically bans the burqa and niqab.

The actual law prohibits any dissimulations of the face in the public space (with a few exceptions like wearing a helmet on a motorbike,etc ) thus prohibiting the burqa.

If the law had targeted the burqa specifically it would have pissed off the muslim community much more and the law would be blatantly unconstitutional. not a smart move...

One cannot compare it with the ban on the veil in schools as the law passed in 2004 was not found unconstitutionnal by the European Union Justice. On the contrary the law banning burqas will likely be found unconstitutional.

So the law is passed to make sure that people committing crimes can be identified, thereby cutting down on terrorism.

Great.

I'm sure all the criminals will obey this law...as much as they do any of the others.

(September 15, 2010 at 6:54 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Fantastic news.

If only the former Great Britain would finally show some backbone and ban them as well.

What a dick.

---

(September 15, 2010 at 4:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So the law is passed to make sure that people committing crimes can be identified, thereby cutting down on terrorism.

Great.

I'm sure all the criminals will obey this law...as much as they do any of the others.

That's not even the case though - They're really worried about Muslims, and the one's who would potentially commit crimes 1) are't representative of the vast majority of the western Muslim population therefore this law simply impedes the freedoms of the innocent and 2) The men don't wear Burquas anyway.

It's a security risk, it's not part of their religion, and it's a tool of oppression it should be illegal, balaclavas are already illegal, the excuse of "it's my religion" is both fake and sad, i hate people that think they have more rights than others because it's their religion

(September 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Ashendant Wrote: It's a security risk

Yeah, because housewives with silk covered faces poses such a threat!

Quote: it's not part of their religion,

Wrong

Quote: and it's a tool of oppression it should be illegal,

In some instances Belts are tools of oppression, do we ban belts? No. The majority of Muslim women WANT to wear the Burqa, because it is used to oppress a minority does not justify impeding the freedoms of the majority.

Quote: balaclavas are already illegal, the excuse of "it's my religion" is both fake and sad, i hate people that think they have more rights than others because it's their religion

Bullshit it's not part of their religion.

(September 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Ashendant Wrote: It's a security risk

In the days when it was fashionable for bank robbers to wear tights over their heads, I don't remember a single person demanding that tights should be banned. What's the difference?

(September 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

(September 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Ashendant Wrote: It's a security risk

In the days when it was fashionable for bank robbers to wear tights over their heads, I don't remember a single person demanding that tights should be banned. What's the difference?

Oh come on, I disagree with the banning but even I see the difference. Wearing tights on one's face would be illegal under this legislation, not owning tights or wearing them on your legs.

(September 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh come on, I disagree with the banning but even I see the difference. Wearing tights on one's face would be illegal under this legislation, not owning tights or wearing them on your legs.

Robbing a bank wearing tights on your legs may be your scene, but it ain't mine.