Banning the Burqa?

[Tiberius]

What you are NOT observing is the law of the land....

Yes, I am. I'm observing it, and pointing out that it is flawed and based on irrational thought.

here we don't tolerate full face coverings..not well any way.

I'm well aware of that, but what we are debating is not what currently happens, but whether it should happen. You have still not given me a concise explanation of your own personal views on banning the burqa, and the reasons for those views, unless your only reasons are "criminals could use them / they make people nervous", which as I've pointed out are not valid reasons for banning something.

You cover your face you ar a criminal or diseased.

Again, we're not debating what the current attitudes are; we are debating whether they are correct attitudes to have. People can cover their face for far more reasons than being a criminal or being diseased, ergo I hold that this kind of attitude is based on the same kind of irrational thought as the reasons for banning the burqa.

You Libertarian attitude will not wash here. We are a Pluralistic society and value that "If in Rome-Do as the Romans do."

I don't care. This debate is not about whether my attitude is compatible with current Australian society.

Should I find myself in say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia..then i would don the Burqa...because it is the Culture and LAW of that land. Beyond that Tiberius you have no argument.

I do have an argument beyond that (actually, I'm not even sure one of my arguments is in there), and that is: "All arguments for banning the burqa in non-Islamic society are based on faulty reasoning and irrational fear and/or Islamophobia". Feel free to try and refute that if you want to, but so far you haven't presented any valid argument for why the burqa should be banned.

You also have no idea of what constitutes a Burqa..did you actually READ that Wiki article you posted??

Burqa are a TRIBAL item of clothing and I would ask you to investigate this problem further before you start spouting nonsensical gibberish.

Yes, I read the article. No, a burqa is "an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places". It may have originally been a tribal item of clothing, but since people still wear them today in non-tribal society, the burqa has clearly evolved and become part of some Islamic tradition and culture. Hell, sandals were invented thousands of years ago, yet we still wear them and don't refer to them as "ancient footwear". My point of contention over your definition is that you held that a burqa could also refer to the hijab, which is not a full face covering. Sorry, but that view simply does not reflect the reality of Islamic clothing. A burqa is a full face covering; a niqab is a partial face covering (usually with an eye slit), and the hijab only covers the hair, ears, and neck. I even linked to a BBC graphic explaining the difference.

Also, which "nonsensical gibberish" are you referring to? You see, I don't think I did spout any, so I'd be enlightened to know what you interpreted as it.

Many of the females in the countries of origin of said pathetic pieces of clothing are adamant that this sort of condemnation and abusive misogyny be abolished. So much for the "Libertarian" attitude...what you are saying is that we should keep females in bondage??

Strawman. Never said that, never even alluded to it. I've made my position very clear: if a woman wants to wear it, or she is submissive to her husband and he says she should wear it, then I have no objection. It is, after all, none of my business, nor should it be mine or anyone else's. What I object to is someone being forced against their will to wear it, however this objection is still no grounds to ban it outright, since there are still women who choose to wear it, and I've already mentioned other reasons why banning an item of clothing is absurd.