• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Five European states back burka ban

together1.jpg


The only difference between a burqa and any other religion's traditional garb is the niqab, which it doesn't sound like this legislation deals with at all.

You have GOT to be kidding with that comparison

The burka is not part of a religious order of Islam!

Did you even know that?

Seriously, that comparison is really pathetic. Try reading how terrorists exploit the anaminity of the burka I listed below as a device to conseal their identity.

When you have men dressed as nun's blowing up crowds of people you be sure to let us know mmmkay?
 
Last edited:
Whats the deal to you? You're not wearing it. It doesn't affect you, reflect on you or mean anything to you. You just look at them - sometimes.

Actually, it does matter.

Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats :: Daniel Pipes

Burka Attack in Afghanistan ? Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

The Lambeth Walk: Armed Robbery Committed by 'Asian' Man Dressed in Burqa


Althouse: The completely covered face in the driver's license photo.

Not only is it subjugating women but its being exploited by terrorists and used to circumvent identification.

Whats more absurd than everyones bias is that some things have actually been strongly sexualized - like a nun's habit.
Thus - are you ever going to grow equal opposition and outrage for the nuns on their behalf? Or against their required habit?

I don't think so.

Can we please stop the stupidity of comparing a nun's outfit to a burka?

Thats like comparing a priests' outfit to a smoking jacket
 

If you were worried about subjugating women then you'd be equally against protestants having to wear long hair and other such things.
The face-covering is only *part* of a burqa (I'm repeating myself) - which isn't always worn or required, it depends on where you are.

However - you didn't bring up the "exploited by terrorists" argument until now. I can read - I know for a fact that's being leaned on an an excuse - not an original reason.
They didn't start this ban based on THAT.

It's ridiculous to suggest that's the case, honestly.
As if all other forms of clothing are fully revealing - and only a burqa gives a terrorist an opportunity to hide weapons in.

In reality weapons can be hide anywhere - like someone's underwear for example. Are you going to ban clothing of any type for all those who might be Middle Eastern?

Oh, wait - you can't do that because it's racial profiling.

So really your only option is to fully support everyone being nude all the time with intermittent body-cavity searches.

You reek of hypocrisy.

Its my theory that you wouldn't have your opinions against the burqa or other Islamic-dress if there weren't extremists going around threatening people - using religion as an excuse to kill. So - is banning the burqa or minaret going to make the terrorists play nice?
NOPE!

Can we please stop the stupidity of comparing a nun's outfit to a burka?

HAH! Look at you, suddenly disproving of a comparison. Imagine that.
Why does that bother you? It's non-biased comparison. One religion and its garb being compared to another religion and it's garb. Why does that get under your skin?

Burqas go hand in hand with their religion and a Habit and Cassock go hand in hand with Catholicism - so on and so forth.

Ask yourself - WHY do nuns WEAR a habit? What does it mean?
They wear it because its Canon Law - required by the church (which is fully formed, operated and controlled by MEN, btw, seeing as how you're all in support for women's rights and anti-subjugation all of a sudden) - and, just as with various Islamic faiths, the required garb varies depending on what era you're considering and what region/culture surrounds someone.
So - why don't you scream out "subjugation!!" on their behalf?

AH! because major difference is that the nun makes the CHOICE to join a nunnery and dedicate herself to God as well as wearing her habit - it's a CHOICE. So - if she CHOOSES to wear it then it's not so offensive, yes?

Exactly.

So, once again - you should be supporting a woman's right to CHOOSE = burqa or no burqa, niqab or no niqab rather than robbing innocent women of a right to their garb that they just *might want to wear* because of what some other people have done or because of what YOU think is right for THEM.

You're full of snot - claiming to be for woman's rights and then turning around and declaring their right to choose to be null and void - and that you, being superior in some way, will choose for them instead.
 
Last edited:
If you were worried about subjugating women then you'd be equally against protestants having to wear long hair and other such things.

LOL Ok I have to ask. What the hell are you talking about?

The face-covering is only *part* of a burqa (I'm repeating myself) - which isn't always worn or required, it depends on where you are.

Which still doesn't address the point that it is used by many to cover the entire face which is the point.

However - you didn't bring up the "exploited by terrorists" argument until now.

How perceptive.

I can read - I know for a fact that's being leaned on an an excuse - not an original reason.
They didn't start this ban based on THAT.


The poll shows some 70 per cent of respondents in France said they supported plans to forbid the wearing of the garment which covers the female body from head to toe. There was similar sentiment in Spain and Italy, where 65 per cent and 63 per cent respectively favored a ban.

Really, so please explain how your mind reading works and you know they all object for other reasons. :roll:

As if all other forms of clothing are fully revealing - and only a burqa gives a terrorist an opportunity to hide weapons in.

In reality weapons can be hide anywhere - like someone's underwear for example. Are you going to ban clothing of any type for all those who might be Middle Eastern?

Like I said earlier, when you find men dressing as nuns blowing up civilians with suicide bombs you be sure to let us know. :rofl

Oh, wait - you can't do that because it's racial profiling So really your only option is to fully support everyone being nude all the time with intermittent body-cavity searches.

Racial profiling? Are you so far gone you think all Muslims are only one race? Are you really that ignorant or is this just a passing thing with you?

Its my theory that you wouldn't have your opinions against the burqa or other Islamic-dress if there weren't extremists going around threatening people - using religion as an excuse to kill. So - is banning the burqa or minaret going to make the terrorists play nice?
NOPE!

Ah we are back to the mind reading argument of yours. Wow is that sad.

HAH! Look at you, suddenly disproving of a comparison. Imagine that.
Why does that bother you? It's non-biased comparison. One religion and its garb being compared to another religion and it's garb. Why does that get under your skin?

Burqas go hand in hand with their religion and a Habit and Cassock go hand in hand with Catholicism - so on and so forth.

Ask yourself - WHY do nuns WEAR a habit? What does it mean?
They wear it because its Canon Law - required by the church (which is fully formed, operated and controlled by MEN, btw, seeing as how you're all in support for women's rights and anti-subjugation all of a sudden) - and, just as with various Islamic faiths, the required garb varies depending on what era you're considering and what region/culture surrounds someone.
So - why don't you scream out "subjugation!!" on their behalf?

AH! because major difference is that the nun makes the CHOICE to join a nunnery and dedicate herself to God as well as wearing her habit - it's a CHOICE. So - if she CHOOSES to wear it then it's not so offensive, yes?

Exactly.

So, once again - you should be supporting a woman's right to CHOOSE = burqa or no burqa, niqab or no niqab rather than robbing innocent women of a right to their garb that they just *might want to wear* because of what some other people have done or because of what YOU think is right for THEM.

You're full of snot - claiming to be for woman's rights and then turning around and declaring their right to choose to be null and void - and that you, being superior in some way, will choose for them instead.

Now that is a textbook definition of a rambling disconjointed rant.

Let us know when you're ready to read what people actually argue instead of playing your best Ivannah topless palm reader you be sure to let us know :)
 
My points are quite legitimate - you just don't want to accept that your argument for the ban is biased.
 
As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news it's too late to stop Muslim influence in Europe or North America.

The spread of members of this cult of hate and repression are set to dominate the world if the spread of of the cult is not stopped and very soon.

Only a cult teaches a reward for the murder of innocent people and subjugates and represses woman.

Until the west has guts enough to tell the truth about this cult the war on terror and the spread of the cult will continue.

I don't see the wearing of the Burka as a threat but the teachings most certainly are a threat to Governments and anyone who will not submit to the cult.

Muslim Demographics Video
I'm all for burka bans. However ironically your description of radical Islam isn't that far off from extremist Christianity either (they just don't have the legal power to enact their intentions - unlike radical Muslims). But I'll probably get labeled a bigot for calling a duck a duck when it comes to Talibangelicals, but not Muslims. Ironic, no?
 
My points are quite legitimate - you just don't want to accept that your argument for the ban is biased.

You are not a mindreader and its extremely arrogant for you to assume the worst in people who vote against them especially when you have no evidence of that claim..
 
I'm all for burka bans. However ironically your description of radical Islam isn't that far off from extremist Christianity either (they just don't have the legal power to enact their intentions - unlike radical Muslims). But I'll probably get labeled a bigot for calling a duck a duck when it comes to Talibangelicals, but not Muslims. Ironic, no?

There is a huge difference in the amount of violence in even the last 100 years between the two religions so making a direct comparison is laughable.

You aren't a bigot but you did just make a completely inaccurate comparison.
 
You are not a mindreader and its extremely arrogant for you to assume the worst in people who vote against them especially when you have no evidence of that claim..


I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to ban the burqa. It all is illegitimate, based on unwarrented fear, misplaced blame, paranoia, and people who consider things as in a worst case scenerio light only.

Have your view all you like, thankfully banning the burqa in the United States would violate the 1st Amendment and be knocked down if brought before Congress or the SCOTUS.
 
Yes let's take away people's freedom of religion (I'm not going into whether this is religious or not again. Saints aren't in the Bible. Are they not religious?) away, and all of the wife beating, honor killing, other subjagation of women, and "Islam taking over our culture" will end. :doh
 
In many of these countries though they are violating religious freedom. They give Muslims special communities so they can subjugate each other to legally binding Shari'ah law. While at the same time they silence Christianity and discriminate in favor of Muslims. I don't really support a Burqa ban (accept for in airports, who knows what they could smuggle in there), but I also think they need to remove the Shari'ah communities, this is more unconstitutional and is completely against a church and state separation.
 
Yes let's take away people's freedom of religion (I'm not going into whether this is religious or not again. Saints aren't in the Bible. Are they not religious?) away, and all of the wife beating, honor killing, other subjagation of women, and "Islam taking over our culture" will end. :doh

No it won't - violence against women and children exists separate from all these things. I feel (yes, purely my opinion) that people use their religion, culture, society norms and governmental rule (or lack of ) simply as an excuse to commit such acts.

Not all - but alot.

I think that any couple is subject to less than favorable situations in which one is abused as well as any family having twisted and bizarre standards which they hold the children up to.
 
You have GOT to be kidding with that comparison

The burka is not part of a religious order of Islam!

Did you even know that?

The burqa is absolutely worn as an expression of a religious obligation. The claim that it's somehow areligious because its origin wasn't solely rooted in a church is ridiculous.

Seriously, that comparison is really pathetic. Try reading how terrorists exploit the anaminity of the burka I listed below as a device to conseal their identity.

When you have men dressed as nun's blowing up crowds of people you be sure to let us know mmmkay?

Which means what? You're saying that the government should be able to take away rights because some people might do something bad with that right. Do you support gun bans because other people might commit crimes with guns?
 
The fact that there are Americans in favor of this ban is absolutely mind-boggling.

Just so you understand, you're favoring a government deciding what people can wear in a manner directed solely at one particular religion.
 
Banning the burka will achieve nothing at all.
 
In many of these countries though they are violating religious freedom. They give Muslims special communities so they can subjugate each other to legally binding Shari'ah law.
Thats not quite how it works.
There are no muslim enclaves as such. People of a common ethnicity tend to congregate though. It happens everywhere. The Irish settled mostly in Boston, New York and Phillie. The Nordic races went to Minesota. The Cubans tend to stay in Florida, and the Extra Terrestrials have California....
It's not just race. For example what is San Fransisco famous for?

And as far as Sharia law is concerned, those courts are for aribitration between individuals (a civil court) as it were. Those judgements are only legaly binding if they don't contravine national law. For example you can draw up an agreement between two individuals and have disputes arbitrated in a sharia court if both parties wish. However they don't have the force of law.
-snip-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

But if a married couple choose to take their marital problems to a religious leader, or if Muslim businessmen appeal to a cleric to settle a financial dispute, that is their affair, assuming that both parties are there voluntarily. In such cases, the issue is not whether a fatwa issued by a sharia court is against the law but whether it has any force in law.

It's a very Libertarian view, because the state stays the heck out of it unless needed.


While at the same time they silence Christianity and discriminate in favor of Muslims.
They don't discriminate in favour of anyone.

I don't really support a Burqa ban (accept for in airports, who knows what they could smuggle in there),
And there is your problem. How do you know that the person under the Burka is a muslim?
but I also think they need to remove the Shari'ah communities, this is more unconstitutional and is completely against a church and state separation.
Thats the point. The state isn't envolved.
 
Last edited:
The fact that there are Americans in favor of this ban is absolutely mind-boggling.

Just so you understand, you're favoring a government deciding what people can wear in a manner directed solely at one particular religion.

Or multiple religions - yet not all religions.

I'm actually not surprised at some Americans supporting this action - its very easy to be against something when it doesn't affect you.

However, imagine how Tex and others would feel if something that was an intricate part of their daily life was loathed by others and eventually taken away for whatever reason. They'd have a fit and be toting the 1st Amendment around like it was their BFFL.

Such sided things only are supported by a mass number of people when it doesn't affect them.

While learning more about this subject I was surprised to read that the full-body garb of the various Middle Eastern faiths have been rallied against, banned or other some sort of attack for centuries.

After reading on the lengthy history concerning the chador, purdah (as in the clothing garb, not the family-home) I, now, equate these many "ban the burqa, ban the minarets" sentiments to be equal to the fear mongering that Hitler conjured up and wielded to rally against the Jews and bring around the Holocaust. OR the attitudes that kept slavery and racism alive for so long in the US (which were still struggling with on a whole in our country).

I'm sure some will think that's extreme - but it makes sense if you think about it.
Hitler blamed them for all problems that plagued Europe and his government.
He made up lies and twisted truth to support his loathing for the Jews.
When he was in power he used his passion against them and his power in office to raise support and force people to comply to his wishes and exterminate them.

What I simply don't understand is why people aren't supporting the rights for the women to make the choice as to the laws they follow - rather than making those choices for them.

They're just swapping out Shariah Law which requires something - with a government law that bans something. There's no middle ground, there. No attempt to compromise or reason with anyone.
 
I have yet to hear a legitimate reason to ban the burqa. It all is illegitimate, based on unwarrented fear, misplaced blame, paranoia, and people who consider things as in a worst case scenerio light only.

Have your view all you like, thankfully banning the burqa in the United States would violate the 1st Amendment and be knocked down if brought before Congress or the SCOTUS.

Its been given to you 3 times and you still ignore it.

Since you obviously didn't read the links I gave you it explained quite easily where the burka when used to cover the entire body would be an issue but that would require you to actually think about what you were arguing and actually reading the argument against you.

But since you are perfectly content to ignore the argument for banning the burka and instead come up with your own reason without a shred of evidence to support you that everyone who is against it is anti-Muslim its no surprise at all you've once again run away from the true argument.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your mind reading abilities that all these Europeans are against the burka because they are all anti Muslim and not because it covers the entire body.
 
The burqa is absolutely worn as an expression of a religious obligation. The claim that it's somehow areligious because its origin wasn't solely rooted in a church is ridiculous.

Please show us where it is said in the Qur'an that women must wear burkas.

We'll wait.

Which means what? You're saying that the government should be able to take away rights because some people might do something bad with that right. Do you support gun bans because other people might commit crimes with guns?

LOL You are comparing guns to burkas?

Can you think rationally for just a second and explain how you defend a garment, ANY garment that covers the entire body from head to toe including the face?

Did you even bother to read the link of the woman who tried to get her license wearing her burka which blocked out her entire face?

Are you so far gone you can't even acknolwedge how that can be a problem?
 
I've read and heard countless stories of burqas being used by those of faith and others posing as those of faith in all sorts of incidences. Yes, I even read your links. All very classic crimes, though, don't you think? Even the terorist attacks - you don't possibly for one second feel that it wouldnt have been possible without the use of a burqa as concealment?

Banning the burqa would not have prevented those crimes. Evident by the fact that crimes are committed every single day without burqas being used.

In the cases where they were worn to conceal weapons (as one focus) are you really suggesting that their crimes would NOT have been committed or possible if they wore a dress or face paint instead of a burqa? They chose the burqa, they could have easily chosen a house dress or a coat.

I also don't feel that they would have to go to the extreme of banning a burqa in order to address the issue of the woman wanting to conceal her face in her ID photo. That is actually an incident in which a compromise should have (and was) struck.
For you to use that initial lack of compromise as a support for banning the entire garb is pure stupidity.

I think it's odd, to say the least, that you and others seem to suggest and firmly believe that these incidences or crimes would have happened if they weren't wearing a burqa.

The only concern that I see to be legitimate is the issue about the photo-ID - but I wouldn't consider banning the burqa to be the solution, obviously.
 
For example what is San Fransisco famous for?

Rice a roni. Your point being?


And as far as Sharia law is concerned, those courts are for aribitration between individuals (a civil court) as it were. Those judgements are only legaly binding if they don't contravine national law. For example you can draw up an agreement between two individuals and have disputes arbitrated in a sharia court if both parties wish. However they don't have the force of law.
-

By very nature, Sharia violates the basic notion of equal protection under the law, because a woman's testimony is regarded as less than a man's. Also, you are not telling the truth about the legality of such sharia court decisions in Britain. They ARE legally binding.


Islamic sharia courts in Britain are now 'legally binding' | Mail Online

Sharia law courts operating in Britain - Telegraph
 
What I simply don't understand is why people aren't supporting the rights for the women to make the choice as to the laws they follow - rather than making those choices for them.

.

What I don't understand is how people try to twist gender slavery into some sort of feminist movement. How completely Orwellian for you to portray the notion of one person owning another into being some sort of personal choice for the person who is owned. Considering the horrifying consequences so many of these women face if they DON'T say it is their choice, what you are supporting here isn't choice at all, but the continuation of abject degradation.

While you are at it, could you please advocate for the repeal of other slavery laws?
 
Its been given to you 3 times and you still ignore it.

Since you obviously didn't read the links I gave you it explained quite easily where the burka when used to cover the entire body would be an issue but that would require you to actually think about what you were arguing and actually reading the argument against you.

But since you are perfectly content to ignore the argument for banning the burka and instead come up with your own reason without a shred of evidence to support you that everyone who is against it is anti-Muslim its no surprise at all you've once again run away from the true argument.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your mind reading abilities that all these Europeans are against the burka because they are all anti Muslim and not because it covers the entire body.

So you're in favor of government deciding what people can wear.
 
I'm still waiting for you to prove your mind reading abilities that all these Europeans are against the burka because they are all anti Muslim and not because it covers the entire body.

I think it's quite obviously anti-Muslim. I doubt someone will get a ticket for wearing a ski mask or something like that. I doubt people on Halloween will find themselves in the back of a patrol car. If you're being honest, then you see this for what it is. It's clearly made against Muslims. And it's no surprise that it comes from Europe, as several countries there (like those with these bans) are very xenophobic and have strong....dislikes....for Muslim.

In the end, it's not even going to do anything but remove women in burka's from the street so people don't have to be reminded of the Muslim population living in their city.
 
Back
Top Bottom