Are you done trolling? You know perfectly well that wasn't the point.

(September 15, 2010 at 7:30 pm)theVOID Wrote: Are you done trolling? You know perfectly well that wasn't the point.

No but it was funny.

(September 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm)AtheistPhil Wrote:

(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.

When you get a copy of the law, then we can talk about who is being misleading. However, if the article is correct about the laws implications and punishments my point still stands. Namely, if you read the last few sentences you can see the law is discriminatory if you aren't prejudiced against Muslim people. Women who wear the garb will be required to undergo citizenship classes. This is blatantly discriminatory language. "If you are a Muslim person who chooses to wear the garb you are not a citizen of France until you stop wearing it, and we are going to fine you and force our 'citizenship education' on you until you change."

---

(September 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: 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.

I agree in principle that nondiscriminatory laws in the public interest can supersede religious liberties. Someone else has used this argument in this post. In the United States the precedent is used to ban the religious practice of a small group of people who use the handling of venomous snakes as part of their religious ceremonies. It is justifiable to prohibit untrained handlers from handling venomous snakes because some might escape and harm or kill people.

I've all ready responded to the argument and made a case that the law, no matter how intended or veiled to be nondiscriminatory, does contain discriminatory language.

Quote: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

Like I said earlier, if you look at the picture in that article I linked to and you are intimidated I laugh at you. Personal perceptions of people are subjective. We can go around prohibiting dress and behavior based upon our personal perceptions if we want to, but I'd rather we didn't.

(September 15, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Robbing a bank wearing tights on your legs may be your scene, but it ain't mine.

[big southern drawl] "Son, you got a panty on your head." (from Raising Arizona)

@theVOID: Women ARE dangerous now, didn't you hear about that train bombing in Russia a while back?

(September 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Yeah, because housewives with silk covered faces poses such a threat!

No but people already used it to successfully escape the police, and it gives the ability to escape identity checks

Quote:Wrong

It's not, it was added very much latter, the religion specifies that covering hands and face is not obligatory

Quote: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.

But Belts are an active tool of oppression, the burka is passive, as for the rest the next point should clarify.

Quote:Bullshit it's not part of their religion.

The point is because it's their religion they get more rights than other people? am I not allowed to wear something to cover my face if I want because it obstructs police, but they are allowed because "It's my religion", it's idiotic like that Muslim father that was allowed to beat his daughter in Italy because "It's my religion" or that guy that was allowed to marry two women because "It's my religion" while the rest has to "deal with it"

(September 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm)Ashendant Wrote: No but people already used it to successfully escape the police, and it gives the ability to escape identity checks

I understand this point. What I don't understand is why you think that criminals who use these methods to escape the police will start listening to a new law that prohibits them from using these methods. Criminals don't tend to listen to the law. This line of reasoning is simply irrational.

There are other ways of performing identity checks. Fingerprints / IRIS scans, etc. These are all non-invasive and respectful to religions.

Quote:But Belts are an active tool of oppression, the burka is passive, as for the rest the next point should clarify.

So...you want to ban passive forms of oppression, but not active? Wha...

You simply ignored theVOID's point, which was that *MOST* muslim women *WANT* to wear the burka. They aren't being forced; they aren't being oppressed; they just want to follow their religion. Just because you see their religious beliefs as oppressive doesn't give you the right to outlaw them. They don't see them as oppressive, and as far as I am concerned, if they want to wear their religious clothing, I have no problems with it.

Quote:The point is because it's their religion they get more rights than other people? am I not allowed to wear something to cover my face if I want because it obstructs police, but they are allowed because "It's my religion", it's idiotic like that Muslim father that was allowed to beat his daughter in Italy because "It's my religion" or that guy that was allowed to marry two women because "It's my religion" while the rest has to "deal with it"

No, their religion doesn't get more rights than other people. You should be allowed to cover your face. I am against all forms of clothing prohibition.

As for your points to beating daughters; this isn't a fair comparison. Beating a daughter is invasive of her civil rights (i.e., the right not to be beaten). Unless she requested the beating, the father is breaking the law. Wearing a burka should only be against the law if the woman is being forced into wearing it. Otherwise, it should be fine.

Similarly with marrying two women. If everyone in the group is fine with it, there shouldn't be a problem legally. It is only if the man is forcing a woman to marry him that it should ever come up as a legal issue.

(September 17, 2010 at 6:44 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm)Ashendant Wrote: No but people already used it to successfully escape the police, and it gives the ability to escape identity checks

I understand this point. What I don't understand is why you think that criminals who use these methods to escape the police will start listening to a new law that prohibits them from using these methods. Criminals don't tend to listen to the law. This line of reasoning is simply irrational.

There are other ways of performing identity checks. Fingerprints / IRIS scans, etc. These are all non-invasive and respectful to religions.

Quote:But Belts are an active tool of oppression, the burka is passive, as for the rest the next point should clarify.

So...you want to ban passive forms of oppression, but not active? Wha...

You simply ignored theVOID's point, which was that *MOST* muslim women *WANT* to wear the burka. They aren't being forced; they aren't being oppressed; they just want to follow their religion. Just because you see their religious beliefs as oppressive doesn't give you the right to outlaw them. They don't see them as oppressive, and as far as I am concerned, if they want to wear their religious clothing, I have no problems with it.

Quote:The point is because it's their religion they get more rights than other people? am I not allowed to wear something to cover my face if I want because it obstructs police, but they are allowed because "It's my religion", it's idiotic like that Muslim father that was allowed to beat his daughter in Italy because "It's my religion" or that guy that was allowed to marry two women because "It's my religion" while the rest has to "deal with it"

No, their religion doesn't get more rights than other people. You should be allowed to cover your face. I am against all forms of clothing prohibition.

As for your points to beating daughters; this isn't a fair comparison. Beating a daughter is invasive of her civil rights (i.e., the right not to be beaten). Unless she requested the beating, the father is breaking the law. Wearing a burka should only be against the law if the woman is being forced into wearing it. Otherwise, it should be fine.

Similarly with marrying two women. If everyone in the group is fine with it, there shouldn't be a problem legally. It is only if the man is forcing a woman to marry him that it should ever come up as a legal issue.

Not when people are running away from the police, that's the point of criminals using the burka.

The point of passive and active was that one is used for passive oppression and that was the objective of the object, while belts objectives is to hold pants up and not beat people

The problem is that we're not allowed to cover our faces but these religious people are because "it's my religion", but if an atheist wanted to marry two women and they wanted it, the germans wouldn't allow it because it was not his religion and they would say "deal with it"

The law says
‘Forbidding the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space’
These are clearly for security purposes, and i prefer to have a secure country than one that crime can avoid the police because of political-correct religious rights

(September 17, 2010 at 7:43 am)Ashendant Wrote: Not when people are running away from the police, that's the point of criminals using the burka.

Do you honestly believe that passing a law that bans burkas will prevent criminals from using them? Honestly?

Quote:The point of passive and active was that one is used for passive oppression and that was the objective of the object, while belts objectives is to hold pants up and not beat people.

Right, but burkas are also used as clothing too. In fact (repeating myself...yay!) *most* muslim women *want* to wear the burka. It isn't oppressive if you are doing it to yourself. It is oppressive if someone else is forcing you to do it.

Quote:The problem is that we're not allowed to cover our faces but these religious people are because "it's my religion", but if an atheist wanted to marry two women and they wanted it, the germans wouldn't allow it because it was not his religion and they would say "deal with it"

...and I fully agree with you. This is why I am against any item of clothing being banned, and why I think people should be allowed to cover their faces in public. Instead of rallying for the banning of clothing, we should be rallying for the right of *everyone* to cover up; same with laws regarding marriage. I don't see what business the state has in marriage; nor do I see what business the state has in what we wear. As long as nobody is infringing on another person's civil rights, there shouldn't be any government action taken.

Quote:The law says
‘Forbidding the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space’
These are clearly for security purposes, and i prefer to have a secure country than one that crime can avoid the police because of political-correct religious rights

Again, these aren't religious rights; they should be the rights of everyone. You are again ignoring my main point; which is that criminals don't give two fucks about the law. No law is going to prevent a criminal from using a burka to hide their appearance.

Think about it for a minute. Criminals don't want to get caught, and the best way of getting caught is to cover up your face so you can't be identified easily. If a law is passed that bans such an act, will a criminal think "Oh...I'd better not cover up my face whilst I rob this bank, now it's illegal to do so."? No. The criminal operates under the belief that they are going to get away, and anything that helps that belief become a reality will be used by them, whether that involves having a get-away car, using an illegal firearm, or covering up their face.

Laws won't change that. Laws only work on the people who are willing to obey them. Criminals don't come under that category.

(September 17, 2010 at 8:14 am)Tiberius Wrote: Do you honestly believe that passing a law that bans burkas will prevent criminals from using them? Honestly?

Right, but burkas are also used as clothing too. In fact (repeating myself...yay!) *most* muslim women *want* to wear the burka. It isn't oppressive if you are doing it to yourself. It is oppressive if someone else is forcing you to do it.

...and I fully agree with you. This is why I am against any item of clothing being banned, and why I think people should be allowed to cover their faces in public. Instead of rallying for the banning of clothing, we should be rallying for the right of *everyone* to cover up; same with laws regarding marriage. I don't see what business the state has in marriage; nor do I see what business the state has in what we wear. As long as nobody is infringing on another person's civil rights, there shouldn't be any government action taken.

Again, these aren't religious rights; they should be the rights of everyone. You are again ignoring my main point; which is that criminals don't give two fucks about the law. No law is going to prevent a criminal from using a burka to hide their appearance.

Think about it for a minute. Criminals don't want to get caught, and the best way of getting caught is to cover up your face so you can't be identified easily. If a law is passed that bans such an act, will a criminal think "Oh...I'd better not cover up my face whilst I rob this bank, now it's illegal to do so."? No. The criminal operates under the belief that they are going to get away, and anything that helps that belief become a reality will be used by them, whether that involves having a get-away car, using an illegal firearm, or covering up their face.

Laws won't change that. Laws only work on the people who are willing to obey them. Criminals don't come under that category.

The problem is not robbing during, but the after where they avoid the police by use this clothing to lose the police, and criminals have done this sucessfully, because the police can't remove that clothing, and i don't aggree with the part of covering your face should be legal.