Banning the Burqa?

[KichigaiNeko]

---

Everywhere? NOT MY PERSONAL justifications Tibby...it is LAW here. Or just in places of commerce? And just what is this persons "version" of a "burqa"? As I have stated...Full face coverings are not acceptable in places of commerce or Government organisations and the fact that a police officer asks you to remove your FULL FACE COVERING is not something that should bow to a select few based on 'religious reasons'

Fair enough, they were not your personal justifications. What are your personal justifications?[/quote Please don't say "it's the LAW", because that is not a justification for the law itself. I want to know your actual justification for why the burka should be banned. The issue of a police officer asking you to remove your full face covering is another matter; if there is reason to suspect the person, and facial identification is required, then it should be allowed. This is not the same thing as banning the burka everywhere, or in select places. There is no reasonable justification for banning it in banks or other commercial buildings.

Hair splitting Tiberius....
Again we ARE talking about places of commerce. And what are you trying to say?? Helmets are part of the standard acceptable and lwful PPE equipment for motocycle riding...what value of PPE does a bit of fabric give?

No, it's not hair splitting. My point was, if the reasons for banning the burka are the same as banning helmets, then banning the burka everywhere should mean helmets are banned everywhere as well. This is of course absurd, and my underlying point was that there are other reasons (Islamophobia) for wanting the burka banned.

Tell that to the commercial banking staff who have been threatened by the wearing of such clothing Tiberius.

This is more a failing of the staff than the person wearing the burka. There is no rational reason to be threatened by a person wearing a burka, or a helmet, or skiing goggles, etc. There is only a rational reason to be threatened if the person themselves is being threatening. Someone wearing clothing is not a valid reason to be threatened by them. Sorry, it just isn't.

I am thinking you are naive in this regard....it is NOT ridiculous and is common practice here in Australia. Only those of "Islamic proclivities" are exempt and I find this rather unfair since I HAVE to remove my motorcycle helmet to just pay for the fuel I just put into my tank! You seem to forget Tiberius that Australia "IS a prison island" (thank you UK) and if you are wearing a covering over your face you 'must be a criminal' (thank you again UK) as those who do not wear a covering are just your average immigrant and can be disregarded as a threat.

I'm not entirely sure whether you disagree with me or not. I'm arguing that the practice is ridiculous; you should be able to wear a helmet to pay for fuel, just as a Muslim should be able to wear a burka. The attitude "covering your face means you are a criminal" is not good, nor is it based on rational thought. However, if you do actually disagree with me, then please state your reasons why. Being common practice does not negate its ridiculousness, nor is it a valid argument for the continuation of the practice. I don't want to know what currently goes one; I want to know why you support it.

Your face is EVERYTHING here...your identity and validity depends on you being Facially identified.

It shouldn't, which is my point.

Why?? Mine aren't. Religion deserves NO respect...tolerance yes, respect no. I have no issue with people wanting to cover themselves from head to toe with fabric, it just makes me wonder what they are trying to hide. BUT, if full face coverings are banned for the majority then religion can go take a hike if they want to function in Australian society and there's an end to it.

Your customs should be respected, just as anyone's should be. Obviously there are exceptions, there always are, but for the most part, people's customs are their own, and shouldn't have to be torn apart. Your attitude of "tolerance yes, respect no" doesn't conform with your final demand that the religious can "go take a hike" if their clothing is banned. That isn't at all tolerant.

You mean customs like female circumcision?

No. I'm not even sure why that is relevant in this conversation. We are talking about clothing.

---

OK Tiberius... let's get a few things straight...

What do YOU define as a 'Burqa'? For me it is a Cultural piece of clothing not unlike so many "National costumes" we see here in Australia.

As such .... should you want to run around in silly inappropriate clothing ..well that is up to you.

IF, we are talking about "Full face Coverings" then this is a different matter. The number of armed robberies utilising "burqas, hoodies, and balaclavas and masks- Full Face Coverings" has prompted the authorities here to take a VERY dim view of those who would cover themselves from head to toe (thank Hollywood et al) and to leave those in the late night "Convenience stores and service stations" very uncomfortable indeed.

In a Utopian world, then yes people should be able to pay for their fuel without having to remove their PPE/ Motorcycle Helmets, but we don't live in that sort of society as yet and so "YOUR face and it's ease of identification" is your passport to no harassment from authorities here or in any 'western' society.

Further, why shouldn't said individual protest the use of the Niqab/ Full Burqa? Are you saying that they should just shut up and wear what is happening to their western society? With no right of opposition?

[Tiberius]

What do YOU define as a 'Burqa'? For me it is a Cultural piece of clothing not unlike so many "National costumes" we see here in Australia.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

As such .... should you want to run around in silly inappropriate clothing ..well that is up to you.

I was originally glad this was your view, but then it is completely contradicted by the following:

IF, we are talking about "Full face Coverings" then this is a different matter. The number of armed robberies utilising "burqas, hoodies, and balaclavas and masks- Full Face Coverings" has prompted the authorities here to take a VERY dim view of those who would cover themselves from head to toe (thank Hollywood et al) and to leave those in the late night "Convenience stores and service stations" very uncomfortable indeed.

No, it is not a different matter. A burqa is a full face covering; it covers the full face (or possible the face except the eyes). So do you think that people should be free to wear them or not?

Full face coverings may have prompted the authorities to take a very dim view of such people, but what we are trying to decide here is whether that view is rational. In my opinion, laws based on irrationality are dangerous. Basing a law on someone feeling "uncomfortable" is a very irrational thing to do. People feel uncomfortable over many different things.

Banning these things does not solve the problem, even if it makes people feel better. Consider the two scenarios:

1) Burqa's are legal. A woman dressed in one enters a store, the owner gets nervous, but all is fine because it's just a woman who wants to pay for something.
2) Burqa's are illegal. A criminal uses one anyway and enters a store, the owner gets nervous, threatens to call the police. The burqa-wearing criminal draws his gun and demands all the money.

How exactly did banning the burqa help in scenario 2? It didn't. It just alienated all the burqa-wearing customers like the lady in scenario 1. Now, I'm not saying that someone shouldn't be nervous if someone in a burqa comes into their store; after all, they might be a criminal as per scenario 2. I'm just saying that reacting to that nervousness by passing a useless law is not going to help.

In a Utopian world, then yes people should be able to pay for their fuel without having to remove their PPE/ Motorcycle Helmets, but we don't live in that sort of society as yet and so "YOUR face and it's ease of identification" is your passport to no harassment from authorities here or in any 'western' society.

I'm confused as to the sort of identification one needs to buy fuel. I've bought fuel many times, and have never been asked for ID, even when I have never met the salesperson before. As I said before, if identification is required, then obviously the burqa needs to be removed (not banned though). This should still be done with Islamic customs in mind.

Further, why shouldn't said individual protest the use of the Niqab/ Full Burqa? Are you saying that they should just shut up and wear what is happening to their western society? With no right of opposition?

No I'm not saying that, and I'm unsure as to which part of my reply made you think I meant that. I personally think the burqa is a horrible thing to get women to wear, but I'm also a Libertarian, and so cannot in good conscience allow my personal views on something to outrank someone else's. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it is up to her. If she is subservient to her husband, and he demands it of her, then it is up to him. Relationships, like what people wear, should be of no concern to the government unless a person's rights are being violated without their permission.

[kılıç_mehmet]

What do YOU define as a 'Burqa'? For me it is a Cultural piece of clothing not unlike so many "National costumes" we see here in Australia.

The burka, or "çarşaf" in Turkish, is not a national costume. Many moslem people have national costumes of their own, but it is actually not a costume at all. You wear your national costume, if you have one, underneath the burka.

[Tempus]

I don't see any reason why the Burqa shouldn't have the same restrictions placed on it that other full-face coverings have on it. If there's a law that states full-face coverings must be removed in a bank (for example) then the burqa, being a full-face covering, shouldn't be exempt to preserve consistency in the application of the law. What happens if one culture values the wearing full-face helmets, and another values bedsheets obscuring their faces? I know they're unrealistic examples, but imagine they're not. Imagine they live in the same country as you. Do we exempt them from this law too? What if we end up with 20 odd exemptions due to respecting these culturally valued items of clothing? The law would end up being "no full-face coverings are permitted in banks except burqas, helmets, bed sheets..."

Now, that being said... I'm actually against banning the burqa along with any other item of clothing (or lack thereof). I'm just saying if there's a law banning a particular type of clothing (such as the kind that obscures your face) then that ban should be applied equally. Personally, I think people should be able to walk around in a full suit of armour or totally naked if they want to, but that's just me. Maybe there's a legitimate reason people aren't allowed to, but I can't really think of one.

Lastly, I can't force myself to feel respect for something that I don't. I can, however, tolerate things I don't respect. I'm actually indifferent to burqa wearing really. I'm much too ignorant on the subject to have reached any conclusion about it.

[KichigaiNeko]

What do YOU define as a 'Burqa'? For me it is a Cultural piece of clothing not unlike so many "National costumes" we see here in Australia.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Not quite Tiberius. 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.

As such .... should you want to run around in silly inappropriate clothing ..well that is up to you.

I was originally glad this was your view, but then it is completely contradicted by the following: your opinion of me is not the issue here.

IF, we are talking about "Full face Coverings" then this is a different matter. The number of armed robberies utilising "burqas, hoodies, and balaclavas and masks- Full Face Coverings" has prompted the authorities here to take a VERY dim view of those who would cover themselves from head to toe (thank Hollywood et al) and to leave those in the late night "Convenience stores and service stations" very uncomfortable indeed.

No, it is not a different matter. A burqa is a full face covering; it covers the full face (or possible the face except the eyes). So do you think that people should be free to wear them or not?

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.

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

Burqa

The full Afghan chadri covers the wearer's entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille.[5]
Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Chadri use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.

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


What I understand to be a "Burqa"

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.

[Tiberius]

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.

[fr0d0]

I hate those face coverings. I wouldn't call it Islamophobia, just way outside of my comfort zone. I don't like it, it makes me feel uneasy, yes. Annoyed too. I wonder if that isn't a motivation - the shock factor on unsuspecting natives.

Wearers should comply with the law, and the law should state that no face coverings are mandatory in certain cercumastances, if that's needed. We've had similar issues contended before in the UK. Crash helmets or turbans. The Sikh observation of carrying a long knife... beaten by the law that knives had to have a maximum fixed length of 6" - no problem... the Sikhs now carry toy replicas.

[Minimalist]

The burka thing is rather complex, actually. Most of you people don't really know what it serves to do, or whatever religious context that is behind it.

Nor do I care. I simply do not ever want to see this......



driving a car.

[Jinkies]

Nor do I care. I simply do not ever want to see this......

driving a car.

Word. It's only reasonable to get scared when you see women driving.

[frankiej]

Nor do I care. I simply do not ever want to see this......

driving a car.

Word. It's only reasonable to get scared when you see women driving.

That could be a man under all that for all you know.