Banning the Burqa?

[KichigaiNeko]

---

Not quite Tiberius.

Yes quite Kichi. I'm not sure what you are objecting to here; you asked me what I defined the burqa as. I not only gave you my definition; I gave you the definition.

As I have said should a lady want to wear a burqa that reveals her face...no problems, it does draw attention to her in a society that has not adopted such clothing though and makes her more of a target.

There is no such thing as a burqa that reveals the face. A burqa by definition is a full face covering. It may have a flap which can be used to reveal the face, but this is closed for the most part. Also, I'd think that the kind of people who would attack a woman for wearing a burqa are the kind of people who would attack her for being Muslim (or looking Arab) anyway.

You are confusing a Burqa with a Niqab ....both pieces of clothing are for different purposes and as such I have no issues with the wearing of tons of clothing in 40 degree heat if that is what the lady wishes. Should she wish to cover her head leaving her face free, this is also not an issue. We do not have many Taliban burqas here in Australia but if we did/do that their banning on the grounds of the persecution of women would be called for.

No, you are confusing both with the hijab. Both the burqa and niqab are full face coverings; the latter covering most of the face but leaving a small slit for the eyes. Let's not make this an argument about semantics please. Let's use the actual definitions of the words rather than what you might think they are.

I am thinking you are a bit confused with the clothing issues here in Australia. I have tried to point out the reasoning against full face coverings in places of commerce but you seem to disregard them.

No, you have not pointed out any reasoning. All you've done is say that some people find them uncomfortable. I've rejected that reason as irrational; if you want to refute my response then do so.

A "Libertarian attitude" would also have to take into account the victims of the crimes where full face coverings have been used. "A Libertarian" would surely consider the psychological impact that has embedded itself in the collective psyche of the society that does NOT routinely wear full face coverings. Or have I misunderstood "Libertarian"? After all should it not be one law for ALL??

You've misunderstood "Libertarian". A Libertarian seeks to maximize liberty; that doesn't involve banning what people can wear because some people have an irrational fear. I've already pointed out why the whole "crimes where full face coverings are used" argument makes absolutely no sense. If you want to object to that argument, please do so properly.

Yes, it should be one law for ALL, but I've never argued against that in this thread. I've already said that if the burqa shouldn't be banned, neither should crash helmets, skiing goggles, etc.

You seem to think that the bannings here are for no other reason that "minority bashing" and this is not the case at all.

No I don't. Please point out where I said this or alluded to this.

One famous case was where a driver refused to take off her/ his Niqab for an identity check with police...big kerfufful ...ended up that it is now a fineable offence NOT to reveal your face for Identity checks by Police, and you will be frog marched to the nearest Police station to have you identity checked. Person in question could originally be charged because the "driver" could not be identified.

Sure, and I've said that there should be exceptions where identification is required. I've said that many times now. Are you actually reading my posts?

Hoodies are being banned in many convenience stores, bottle shops and service stations, just as motorcycle helmets, and Balaclavas...in short, you must reveal your face for identity purposes as the majority of commercial establishments are on CCTV/ Video monitoring thanks to the small percentage of the population who see fit to steal, maim and or murder.

Right, except again you bring up the argument from "criminal action". What aren't you getting about this? Criminals will wear masks to hide their identities whether it is legal to do so or not. They are criminals; they do not care for the law. This whole argument is completely illogical. Of course, a shop that requires ID (i.e. if it is selling tobacco / alcohol) should also require that any face covering be revealed, but I'm not against that. I've said there are exceptions, but exceptions should not be the general rule.

"Islamicphobia" like Halal has no real meaning here in Australia except to make food more expensive and to add ANOTHER minority group to the collection....

Irrelevant if it holds no meaning. If it exists, it exists.

What you seem to be calling a Burqa...and yes I object to this amount of covering in places of commerce.

Again, why? Do you have any other argument other than the deeply flawed "because criminals use them"?

What I object to and will support the laws of this land regarding this item of recently cultural clothing...one law for ALL or no law at all. I think this is only fair.

Now I really think you aren't reading my posts. I've said that it should be one law for ALL or no law at all. I hold that there is no rational reason to have any burqa ban at all, so I'm for the "no law at all" option. You have yet to present a logical argument for why the burqa should be banned. If you do so, we can discuss it. If not, we're doomed to just keep repeating ourselves.

---

Then I would suggest you don't come to Australia mate.