French law could see fines for burqas

Apocalypse said:

Arguments for:


[*]It symbolizes oppression of women in Islamic societies.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

It is the direct oppression of women in Islamic societies.

Apocalypse said:

[*]If a cultural symbol becomes strong in your nation, the symbol must be banned to protect your own cultural dominance in your own nation.

Click to expand...

Or, you hope your damn traitor comedians find ways to make the intruding symbol so hysterical embarassingly funny it falls out of favor.

I would think the burqa would be an easy target.

Apocalypse said:

[*]It has nothing to do with the Muslim religion.

Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that Islam is the most misogynist religion ever spawned from Abraham's original bad dream?

Apocalypse said:

[*]And the most obvious reason, it's goddamned ugly.

Click to expand...

You seriously want the government to legislate fashion?

Ikari said:

Why do I need to consider them? I can walk around with all sorts of **** that can obscure me from CCTV. I mean, Halloween masks can work too...do we outlaw those?

Click to expand...

One doesn't wear halloween masks every day.

No. There's no reason to consider CCTV. People don't need to follow me or record me wherever I go, it's not their right to video tape me.

Click to expand...

They are not videotaping you they are videotaping the street you are on. And being in public you have no expectation of privacy. Curiously, there is only one class of person that it is illegal in the UK to photograph.
The police.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

CCTV.

You mean like for autmated/remote surveillance of daily activities of the people in public places?

Easy solution.

Spray paint any CCTV camera you see. Have all your friends join the party, use different colors, redecorate your city.

Click to expand...

And go to jail for criminal damage....

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

You mean besides the fact that Islam is the most misogynist religion ever spawned from Abraham's original bad dream?

Click to expand...

Some versions of it are. Some aren't.

Religion isn't monolithic.

Alvin T. Grey said:

One doesn't wear halloween masks every day.

Click to expand...

No law against it though. I could walk around with a Halloween mask. Should we make a law stating you can only wear a Halloween mask on or around Halloween? Don't think so.

Alvin T. Grey said:

They are not videotaping you they are videotaping the street you are on. And being in public you have no expectation of privacy.

Click to expand...

And there's no expectation that I don't walk around in cloths that can conceal myself for the camera either. The only purpose CCTV cameras like the one that you've described should serve is for target practice. I am under no obligation to reveal myself to passing cameras so that the government can record my movements.

Alvin T. Grey said:

Curiously, there is only one class of person that it is illegal in the UK to photograph.
The police.

Click to expand...

And that should tell you a HUGE problem right there.

Alvin T. Grey said:

And go to jail for criminal damage....

Click to expand...

They won't know it was you if you're wearing a Halloween mask.

Maximus Zeebra said:

EUobserver / French law could see fines for burqas



Example to follow or example to shy?

Personally I think it needs to be followed in all free societies. Anything can be hidden under a burqa, its a danger to society.

Click to expand...

Why stop there?

Don't forget that people can hide things under coats in the winter. Let's make everyone wear tight fitting clothes all year around.

People can hide things in their home, too. Let's allow police to search each home. Oh, and cars.

We can install cameras in every car, as well as in every home.

If we truly want a safe society, after all, we have to give up everything we stand for. What's more important, letting Big Brother decide what is best for us concerning safety, or being free?

Ikari said:

No law against it though. I could walk around with a Halloween mask. Should we make a law stating you can only wear a Halloween mask on or around Halloween? Don't think so.

Click to expand...

There would be if there was an issue with wearing halloween masks by a percentage of the population constantly in public.

And there's no expectation that I don't walk around in cloths that can conceal myself for the camera either. The only purpose CCTV cameras like the one that you've described should serve is for target practice. I am under no obligation to reveal myself to passing cameras so that the government can record my movements.

Click to expand...

Firstly, CCTV cameras are used to identify suspects in a crime. Secondly why would those operating them go to all of the time trouble and expense of tracking you. Thirdly if you are on a public street in full view you have no right to privacy.

And that should tell you a HUGE problem right there.

Click to expand...

That law exists (although it is very rarely enforced) because in some parts of the UK Police officers are considered legitimate targets for assisination. There was one blown up last week.

Ikari said:

They won't know it was you if you're wearing a Halloween mask.

Click to expand...

Then they arrest the guy in the halloween mask....

Kandahar said:

Sure, they have their own standards. Some Islamic communities consider it unacceptable for women not to wear the burqa. So what? As long as they aren't legally REQUIRED to wear them, then it's no different than any other social construct.]

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me that some people choose to bluntly ignore the fact that "Islamic law" is not dependent on the state's laws.
Police aren't going to enforce Islamic laws, fundamentalist Muslims would.
Just because they are not required by written-law to wear those Burqas, does not mean that they wouldn't be persecuted for that.

What do honor killings have to do with the burqa?

Click to expand...

Besides both being an interpretation of the Quran by radical elements, and not something that is actually written in the Quran; those who do not wear the burqa, 'put a shame' on their families, and the mentioned families might as well practice the honor killing on those who shame them in front of their communities.

Ikari said:

Ok, but that's not limited to a burqa. Also, wearing a burka doesn't mean you'll be doing these things. Maybe you should wait for something along the lines of...I don't know, maybe.....proof before you start exercising government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Are trench coats illegal? Long, baggy pants? Will y'all have to wear tight shorts and cut off shirts every day then? Hmm? Did you even realize the repercussions of the argument you just made?

Click to expand...

Once again, the obvious escapes you completely.

None of the garments you mentioned conceals the identity of its wearer.

Kandahar said:

Why? Who cares? Their dress choice doesn't hurt you or anyone else, so who are you to say what their culture "should" be?

Click to expand...

How is gender slavery not hurtful?

Gardener said:

Once again, the obvious escapes you completely.

None of the garments you mentioned conceals the identity of its wearer.

Click to expand...

Masks going to be illegal? Long trenchcoats with big collars and a hat? Can conceal quite a lot. Ski masks? How much more is illegal. Face paint? Comeon, if someone robs a bank all made up like KISS, how are you going to tell? Right? I mean, this is the argument right?

The obvious which escapes you is that this law isn't for any "safety" consideration because it doesn't go after anything else. It's not about domestic abuse or indocrination because it doesn't go after the root causes of those. It is merely a law passed against a religious sect that the people feel is somehow damaging. That's it. And that, Captain Obvious, is the obvious connotation of the law.

Alvin T. Grey said:

There would be if there was an issue with wearing halloween masks by a percentage of the population constantly in public.

Click to expand...

There's no rule against it. How would it be a problem? And at what level does it become a problem? Surely 1 person wearing a halloween mask all the time wouldn't qualify for a law? But how many Muslim women as a percentage of population were wearing the burqa in the first place? And why is it any of your business if they do or not? I think a lot of this comes from nosy busybodies who can't keep to themselves. People who hate perhaps a certain religion and that practitioners of that religion are maybe in their country.

In America, if people wore Halloween masks, or any mask really, on a routine basis there still wouldn't be a law against it. And that's rightful. There's no reason to regulate clothing of the individual past requiring some amount of clothing in public. That's it.

Alvin T. Grey said:

Firstly, CCTV cameras are used to identify suspects in a crime. Secondly why would those operating them go to all of the time trouble and expense of tracking you. Thirdly if you are on a public street in full view you have no right to privacy.

Click to expand...

First, CCTVs unnecessarily record people doing nothing wrong and is nothing more than Big Brother government. Second, they will record and database everything they can. They are taking the time and trouble and expense to track me as they are tracking everyone with those cameras. Thirdly, I always have the right to secure my person, papers, property, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Wanna track me? Get a warrant. Fourthly, there is no requirement that I walk down the street in full view of the cameras wearing outfits that will allow for easy identification of my person. None at all.

Alvin T. Grey said:

That law exists (although it is very rarely enforced) because in some parts of the UK Police officers are considered legitimate targets for assisination. There was one blown up last week.

Click to expand...

Mmmmhmmmm. Protect the State, protect the State, protect the State. All at the cost of the freedom and liberty of the people. Calling card of the fascist.

Ikari said:

Masks going to be illegal? Long trenchcoats with big collars and a hat? Can conceal quite a lot. Ski masks? How much more is illegal. Face paint? Comeon, if someone robs a bank all made up like KISS, how are you going to tell? Right? I mean, this is the argument right?

The obvious which escapes you is that this law isn't for any "safety" consideration because it doesn't go after anything else. It's not about domestic abuse or indocrination because it doesn't go after the root causes of those. It is merely a law passed against a religious sect that the people feel is somehow damaging. That's it. And that, Captain Obvious, is the obvious connotation of the law.

Click to expand...

There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. The article said quite plainly "the legislation "would prohibit the covering of the face in public places and on the streets, with the exception of special cultural events or carnivals".


You should be capable of offering more than thoughtless red herrings if you wish to be able to debate.

Alvin T. Grey said:

Then they arrest the guy in the halloween mask....

Click to expand...

How do you find the guy in the Halloween mask? If they take out the camera and duck down an alley, you're not going to be able to find him. Those big brother, aggressively probing, monitoring, and recording CCTV cameras would be rightfully shot out by the People. If the government wants to watch and record, they can go ahead and get a warrant.

Am I the only one to notice what a paradigm shift we have experienced since the sixties? With the exception of some of the more dogmatic libertarians, it is now the left that argues in favor of the visciously misogynistic oppression of women, while it is the right that seeks to uphold women's rights.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave knowing that slavery is now being peddled as freedom.

Gardener said:

There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. The article said quite plainly "the legislation "would prohibit the covering of the face in public places and on the streets, with the exception of special cultural events or carnivals".


You should be capable of offering more than thoughtless red herrings if you wish to be able to debate.

Click to expand...

The legislation is meant to target a specific group. And there's no reason why you should have to show your face in public. It's nothing more than the standard Big Brother politics and targeting a group deemed "hostile" and unwelcome by another group. That's it. There will be no benefit from this and if you think that they'll go after someone wearing a mask or face paint or a trench coat and hat, then you should really reconsider throwing out the "willful ignorance" claim.

It is not proper government control or regulation. This was made specifically to go after a certain sect of religious people, a sect not in favorable public opinion. That's it. It's the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the minority. Dangerous stuff.

Gardener said:

Am I the only one to notice what a paradigm shift we have experienced since the sixties? With the exception of some of the more dogmatic libertarians, it is now the left that argues in favor of the visciously misogynistic oppression of women, while it is the right that seeks to uphold women's rights.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave knowing that slavery is now being peddled as freedom.

Click to expand...

How is legislating what a woman can wear protecting or upholding her rights?
Surely if you wished to uphold said rights, you'd support an individuals right to wear what they wish.

Gardener said:

Am I the only one to notice what a paradigm shift we have experienced since the sixties? With the exception of some of the more dogmatic libertarians, it is now the left that argues in favor of the visciously misogynistic oppression of women, while it is the right that seeks to uphold women's rights.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave knowing that slavery is now being peddled as freedom.

Click to expand...

By dictating what they can and cannot wear you're upholding their "rights"? Really? And I thought this wasn't about the burqa but all items which cover the face in the name of public safety. What would woman's rights have to do with anything? Unless this legislation was specifically crafted to go after a certain religious sect.

Gardener said:

Am I the only one to notice what a paradigm shift we have experienced since the sixties? With the exception of some of the more dogmatic libertarians, it is now the left that argues in favor of the visciously misogynistic oppression of women, while it is the right that seeks to uphold women's rights.

Click to expand...

Bull****.

I support the right of women to dress how they want - in a burqa, or not.

Laila said:

How is legislating what a woman can wear protecting or upholding her rights?
Surely if you wished to uphold said rights, you'd support an individuals right to wear what they wish.

Click to expand...

It is the awareness that the negative effects and results of the burqa are caused not by state legalization, but by communities' and families' pressure on the individual.

It is not done in alignment with the law, but in alignment with the family/community values.

Apocalypse said:

It is the awareness that the negative effects and results of the burqa are caused not by state legalization, but by communities' and families' pressure on the individual.

It is not done in alignment with the law, but in alignment with the family/community values.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt every female who wears a burqa or niqab do so because of pressures. Some, as hard as it may be to comprehend do actually wear it because they choose to.

Apocalypse said:

It is the awareness that the negative effects and results of the burqa are caused not by state legalization, but by communities' and families' pressure on the individual.

It is not done in alignment with the law, but in alignment with the family/community values.

Click to expand...

People shouldn't have a say in how they run their everyday life? The family believes X, they shouldn't be allowed to follow? While the problem with things like burqa's is that in society where the oppression is encouraged it becomes a problem. Outside that society, however, and it becomes personal choice. If you have a society based in freedom and liberty, then those wearing the burqa are doing so by their own desire and will.

And how does this help women. Let's say there's a woman in an abusive/oppresive household. How is barring them from wearing a burqa outside helping them out? All you're going to do is prevent them from going outside. Shut ins who suffer far greater then. You have to go after the root causes, not some superficial display. Indoctrination into the free society. It has to be made understood that there is always a choice, that women do not have to submit totally to men (not even their husbands). They have rightful voice and protection by law. Then you don't even need a stupid law banning a burqa.

Laila said:

How is legislating what a woman can wear protecting or upholding her rights?
Surely if you wished to uphold said rights, you'd support an individuals right to wear what they wish.

Click to expand...

You mean wear what her owner wishes.

Given the specific culture, the chattel involved face the probably of being beaten or cut up for even saying it ISN'T her choice.