Banning the burqa

[Assume Nothing]

In the UK, of the 91,500 people stopped and searched in 2009-10, only two were actually arrested.

 

If I brought in a tax that only targeted 0.002% of the individuals tax officers thought it might cover, I'd be laughed out of office, yet apparently if you translate this pathetic success rate to terrorism, it's necessary for our safety because there's a tiny possiblity that a terrorist might just one day perhaps be picked up. Our past record on terrorism doesn't give me much faith that full-faced veil bans are even useful, let alone necessary. The 'oppresed' thing is a retrospect argument that has no direct relevence to terrorism. All this is without even resorting to principles of religious freedom and tolerance in a democratic society.

 

91,500 people? What were they doing? What were they stopped for? I don't see how this is directly relevant to the subject we are discussing here.

 

EDIT - Judging from the BBC link you've given, it doesn't seem as though they were specifically targeting individuals who are perceived as 'dangerous'. It seems as though they targeted anything that could be perceived as a terrorist threat, be it a unattended van or a person with a guitar case.

 

I don't see the analogy being any good either - The purpose of taxation is radically different to the purpose of the proposed ban today.

 

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

 

I'd argue that the ban is necessary - It reduces the likelihood of risk or danger to the public, or, worse case scenario, it reduces the perception of risk or danger to the public.

 

As I've stated in a previous post, there are contradicting rights in the humans rights acts. Which right triumphs which: The right to good health (and to be free of mental anguish), or the right to free speech/expression?

[Danqazmlp]

I don't think they should be outright banned, but they should be heavily discouraged. There is nothing good about wearing them, other than their perceived religious status, which is fairly bogus due to how obviously rare they are in modern western societies which have a high Muslim population.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will.

[Furah]

I'm opposed to religious repression.

[Assume Nothing]

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will.

 

The use of your analogy is once again sub-par. Black visored motorbike helmets serve a different purpose - It's to prevent head/eye injury to motorbikers. There are other ways to identify a biker in a hit and run case - Eg the number plate that's obviously on the bike itself.

 

The right of free will shouldn't triumph other people's rights without a good reason.

 

Could you address the other issues in the quote that you decided to cherry pick, please?

[Myweponsg00d]

My opinion on the subject is probably the most right-wing of all of my views, but I stand by it. I support the ban and wish other countries did the same. I just mostly find it a matter of security, when you are in a space where one person is physically capable of hurting another who they do not know, being able to identify other people is paramount. I also find the whole idea of the Burqa as a purely sexist construct that has no place in this society, no matter how multicultural. I do not tolerate homophobia or racism, so why should I tolerate someone hiding their face from me purely because I'm a male?

 

Then we should ban pockets and trenchcoats. I can go outside right now with a gun inside my coat pocket and nobody would know. This is clearly a security threat.

 

Also if anyone is going to blow up a building, do you really think theyre gonna give a crap if a 250 dollar burqa fine is in place? No. Theyre gonna throw on their disquise then drop off the bomb, blow it up, and run away. Hell, lots of Muslim attacks are suicides anyway, so what does it matter if their identity is concealed?

[Ginger_Warrior]

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will.

 

The use of your analogy is once again sub-par. Black visored motorbike helmets serve a different purpose - It's to prevent head/eye injury to motorbikers. There are other ways to identify a biker in a hit and run case - Eg the number plate that's obviously on the bike itself.

 

The right of free will shouldn't triumph other people's rights without a good reason.

 

Could you address the other issues in the quote that you decided to cherry pick, please?

You're welcome to find some far-flung Internet source to counter this (plenty exist when it comes to Islam), but from the Muslims I've spoken to in life, full-faced veils are to respect a woman's right to privacy. Where's the harm in that?

 

"Right to privacy" doesn't exactly scream "She wants to blow this [cabbage] up".

[Distracted]

My opinion on the subject is probably the most right-wing of all of my views, but I stand by it. I support the ban and wish other countries did the same. I just mostly find it a matter of security, when you are in a space where one person is physically capable of hurting another who they do not know, being able to identify other people is paramount. I also find the whole idea of the Burqa as a purely sexist construct that has no place in this society, no matter how multicultural. I do not tolerate homophobia or racism, so why should I tolerate someone hiding their face from me purely because I'm a male?

 

Then we should ban pockets and trenchcoats. I can go outside right now with a gun inside my coat pocket and nobody would know. This is clearly a security threat.

Yes, but the difference is anyone can see what you look like. If you rob a store or assault someone, witnesses can describe what you look like. If someone's wearing a burqa you can't even tell their gender with certainty.

Also if anyone is going to blow up a building, do you really think theyre gonna give a crap if a 250 dollar burqa fine is in place? No. Theyre gonna throw on their disquise then drop off the bomb, blow it up, and run away. Hell, lots of Muslim attacks are suicides anyway, so what does it matter if their identity is concealed?

This is true. The law will still be broken by certain individuals and there's nothing that can be done about it. The main thing is that there is a law that's meant to show people that something is not accepted.

 

Not in response to anyone in particular, but I don't view this as strictly a terror threat, but a bit broader, as any crime that can happen on the street. Like I said earlier, people have right to religious expression and freedom of speech, but when any of those rights are in conflict with public safety, something has to be done about. Which is why I don't think anything should be done about hijab.

[Myweponsg00d]

Yes, but the difference is anyone can see what you look like. If you rob a store or assault someone, witnesses can describe what you look like. If someone's wearing a burqa you can't even tell their gender with certainty.

 

How is this different than wearing a ski mask, pantyhose, and all of the other stuff that robbers usually wear?

 

 

This is true. The law will still be broken by certain individuals and there's nothing that can be done about it. The main thing is that there is a law that's meant to show people that something is not accepted.

 

Not in response to anyone in particular, but I don't view this as strictly a terror threat, but a bit broader, as any crime that can happen on the street. Like I said earlier, people have right to religious expression and freedom of speech, but when any of those rights are in conflict with public safety, something has to be done about. Which is why I don't think anything should be done about hijab.

 

And again, how are these face coverings different from other face coverings which have not been banned? There are many people who commit crimes under many disguises.

[obfuscator]

Yes, but the difference is anyone can see what you look like. If you rob a store or assault someone, witnesses can describe what you look like. If someone's wearing a burqa you can't even tell their gender with certainty.

 

How is this different than wearing a ski mask, pantyhose, and all of the other stuff that robbers usually wear?

 

Because if you see someone in one of these, you know they're going to commit robbery (to a reasonable extent). You can't know that with someone wearing a burqa until they've actually pulled the gun on you, which leaves you very little time to do anything about it.

[Distracted]

I'm not saying it is different. My whole point is it's the same and it's even worse, since there's no certainty about any of the person's characteristics. You can't even tell the gender. I don't know if there's a law regarding wearing ski or hockey masks in public, but if there isn't, I wish there was one. But to be honest, there's no one wearing those masks without the intention of committing a crime.

[Myweponsg00d]

Yes, but the difference is anyone can see what you look like. If you rob a store or assault someone, witnesses can describe what you look like. If someone's wearing a burqa you can't even tell their gender with certainty.

 

How is this different than wearing a ski mask, pantyhose, and all of the other stuff that robbers usually wear?

 

Because if you see someone in one of these, you know they're going to commit robbery (to a reasonable extent). You can't know that with someone wearing a burqa until they've actually pulled the gun on you, which leaves you very little time to do anything about it.

 

You're right. All of the people who wear ski masks to rob banks take long strolls in the park with their ski masks on before heading to the bank.

 

Banning the burqa doesn't do anything against people who want to actually use it as a disguise.

 

 

I'm not saying it is different. My whole point is it's the same and it's even worse, since there's no certainty about any of the person's characteristics. You can't even tell the gender. I don't know if there's a law regarding wearing ski or hockey masks in public, but if there isn't, I wish there was one. But to be honest, there's no one wearing those masks without the intention of committing a crime.

 

Youre right, theres nobody who wears ski masks around and there are people who wear burqas around with honest intentions. Whats your point? If anything your argument sounds like you should be against the burqa ban. We don't see ski masks around in public, yet people still wear them to comit crimes all the time. Why would the burqa be any different? If someone wants to use the burqa to hide their ID, what is going to make it different from just throwing it on the same way people throw on other masks?

[Distracted]

I'm not saying it is different. My whole point is it's the same and it's even worse, since there's no certainty about any of the person's characteristics. You can't even tell the gender. I don't know if there's a law regarding wearing ski or hockey masks in public, but if there isn't, I wish there was one. But to be honest, there's no one wearing those masks without the intention of committing a crime.

 

Youre right, theres nobody who wears ski masks around and there are people who wear burqas around with honest intentions. Whats your point? If anything your argument sounds like you should be against the burqa ban. We don't see ski masks around in public, yet people still wear them to comit crimes all the time. Why would the burqa be any different? If someone wants to use the burqa to hide their ID, what is going to make it different from just throwing it on the same way people throw on other masks?

 

I will admit it was a bit poorly worded. What I meant is that ski masks aren't something that people in society just wear. Burqas are. I'm not claiming everyone wearing a burqa has bad intentions, but there is a chance that someone is. A difference between the two is that a ski mask can be put on quickly before robbing a bank, but burqas are way harder to just jump into if you want to rob a bank or assault someone or whatever it is you want to do.

 

You have to think about the implications that you don't know who you're speaking to or looking at when someone passes in a burqa. Those are people of which you can't know their identity. It may not be a direct threat, but it's an indirect threat that makes people uncomfortable. If some religion suddenly called for ski masks to be worn at all times, it wouldn't take long for the state to do something about it, but because this specific religion is Islam it's suddenly unheard of to ban such a thing.

 

Rocco: Bombers dressed in burqas killed 41 in Pakistan while standing in line in Pakistan. I don't have time at the moment to look for many more stories, but this one's an example of bombers that just blended in with the crowd before detonating themselves. If they were running around with explosives strapped to their waist and they weren't wearing burquas, something would probably have been done.

 

Like I said, I don't have time now because I have to leave in a minute.

[Guy]

My opinion on the subject is probably the most right-wing of all of my views, but I stand by it. I support the ban and wish other countries did the same. I just mostly find it a matter of security, when you are in a space where one person is physically capable of hurting another who they do not know, being able to identify other people is paramount. I also find the whole idea of the Burqa as a purely sexist construct that has no place in this society, no matter how multicultural. I do not tolerate homophobia or racism, so why should I tolerate someone hiding their face from me purely because I'm a male?

 

Then we should ban pockets and trenchcoats. I can go outside right now with a gun inside my coat pocket and nobody would know. This is clearly a security threat.

 

Also if anyone is going to blow up a building, do you really think theyre gonna give a crap if a 250 dollar burqa fine is in place? No. Theyre gonna throw on their disquise then drop off the bomb, blow it up, and run away. Hell, lots of Muslim attacks are suicides anyway, so what does it matter if their identity is concealed?

The $250 fine is there to discourage the waring of burqas. Thus there will be less people wearing burqas, thus the terrorist in this case would be a lot more conspicious and would be stopped. AFAIK, the ban in France was based somewhat about security, but it was more about how it's against France's belifs as a nation. The tone of your post did seem very anti-Muslim in general too, just saying..

 

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will.

If we think about the west, then there's really 2 parties human rights that have to be considered. The Muslim people who wear burqas volunatarily alongside those who are forced to wear the burqa (which is an entirely different aspect of human rights), and the rights of the general public who have the right to feel safe. I agree both of your examples persecute free will, but without statistics it's hard to say which is the most utalitarian.

 

 

 

The problem with any ban on this matter is that there are two types of Muslim women - those who do and those who do not want to wear the burqa, and sadly the options are all or none.. Personally I think the hijab is acceptable because the entire face is visible and thus that part of the 'security' issue is gone. I'd be genuinely interested to hear arguments against the hijab.

 

Edit:

You shouldn't really ban things that don't have direct negative affects on people's wellbeing. If you can prove that burqas do, then ban them.

There's the potential damage to society and infringements of human rights related to feeling safe. There's also the issue that many Muslim women are indeed forced to wear the burqa.

[Guy]

@ Fool: We're discussing the law in France. What happens in Pakistan is irrelevant. The bombers in Pakistan were able to blend in because burqas are much more common in that part of the world. Following that logic, wouldn't we also have to ban trench coats and bulky jackets?

Trench coats and bulky jackets have a very practical use, y'know.. keeping warm. That's not to say that burqas don't have a use, but I believe the whole France issue is not so much about security but how it's against the whole Frech way of life.

[obfuscator]

 

You're right. All of the people who wear ski masks to rob banks take long strolls in the park with their ski masks on before heading to the bank.

 

Banning the burqa doesn't do anything against people who want to actually use it as a disguise.

No, but they will hurriedly put it on before entering the store, thus alerting everyone around (outside and in) of their intent. A burqa is different (unless of course it was illegal and would be seen in the same way).

[Myweponsg00d]

I will admit it was a bit poorly worded. What I meant is that ski masks aren't something that people in society just wear. Burqas are. I'm not claiming everyone wearing a burqa has bad intentions, but there is a chance that someone is. A difference between the two is that a ski mask can be put on quickly before robbing a bank, but burqas are way harder to just jump into if you want to rob a bank or assault someone or whatever it is you want to do.

 

Okay...and?? So then why would a robber ever perfer a burqa over a ski mask?

 

You have to think about the implications that you don't know who you're speaking to or looking at when someone passes in a burqa. Those are people of which you can't know their identity. It may not be a direct threat, but it's an indirect threat that makes people uncomfortable. If some religion suddenly called for ski masks to be worn at all times, it wouldn't take long for the state to do something about it, but because this specific religion is Islam it's suddenly unheard of to ban such a thing.

 

The difference is that these people have been wearing burqas before France even became a nation (I think?).

Rocco: Bombers dressed in burqas killed 41 in Pakistan while standing in line in Pakistan. I don't have time at the moment to look for many more stories, but this one's an example of bombers that just blended in with the crowd before detonating themselves. If they were running around with explosives strapped to their waist and they weren't wearing burquas, something would probably have been done.

 

Like I said, I don't have time now because I have to leave in a minute.

 

What? So if they were wearing a large bulky coat instead they wouldn't have just blended in with the crowd? The only reason they had those on was due to the location of the incident.

 

No, but they will hurriedly put it on before entering the store, thus alerting everyone around (outside and in) of their intent. A burqa is different (unless of course it was illegal and would be seen in the same way).

 

And? So what? Whats the difference? Why can't someone with ill intent now just slip on a burqa just like they slip on a ski mask currently?

 

And also, what is the scenario? Describe a situation that will now be prevented due to the burqa. What? Like...a robber walks from his home to a bank with a burqa on, cleverly blending in with the crowd. Then he goes in and robs a bank. And?? So what? Weres his getaway car? Why is this situation more dangerous than if the person had just run into the bank from a van, with a ski mask on?

 

All you are doing is saying "Its a threat, you can't tell who they are" Lots of stuff sounds dangerous if you say vague stuff like this. Public internet access is a security threat because it gives anyone the ability to hack into confidential files or spread viruses. It's a threat! Oh no! Pockets are a threat too. I can walk the whole way up to a bank teller without them knowing I have a gun. If pockets were banned, I would have to carry my gun.

[Assume Nothing]

As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so.

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11?

 

I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will.

 

The use of your analogy is once again sub-par. Black visored motorbike helmets serve a different purpose - It's to prevent head/eye injury to motorbikers. There are other ways to identify a biker in a hit and run case - Eg the number plate that's obviously on the bike itself.

 

The right of free will shouldn't triumph other people's rights without a good reason.

 

Could you address the other issues in the quote that you decided to cherry pick, please?

You're welcome to find some far-flung Internet source to counter this (plenty exist when it comes to Islam), but from the Muslims I've spoken to in life, full-faced veils are to respect a woman's right to privacy. Where's the harm in that?

 

"Right to privacy" doesn't exactly scream "She wants to blow this [cabbage] up".

 

First of all, that's simply a generalization; You're taking a specific example of someone's opinion and presenting it as a general fact.

 

Furthermore, the disclosure of the face is in the public interest (for their own safety), thus you couldn't argue that it is a privacy right to wear them.

 

Assuming the right to privacy does apply in this situation, which I doubt, you haven't explained how it triumph's society's rights to good health and be free of mental anguish.

 

I don't understand your argument very well. Enlighten me.

 

@Mywepon: You've not only misrepresented our arguments, but you've made a poor analogy. Could we please go back to the discussion about banning the Burqa?

[Resistance]

I'm not sure if this point has already been raised but if muslim women aren't allowed to wear burqa's or niqab's then will they stay at home (by choice or otherwise) thus isolating themselves from normal society.

 

Ignoring that point however I completely agree with France's decision to ban the burqa. It is stopping Islamic assimilation of culture and preserving French culture. The muslim dress can be seen as very intimidating to most and lets face it, if I started walking around in a veil then most would assume that I am a burglar. Allowing people to stride around in massive cloaks, covering most or even all of there face seems to pretty much be incouraging petty crimes.

The concept of Hijab is almost synonymous with sexual seggregation and the act of France banning some islamic clothing represents the government striving for gender equality.

 

I completely disagree, this isn't a matter of privacy. Unmarried muslim women are entitled to the same amount of privacy as married muslim women, if a person suddenly wants an increase in there level of privacy because of there religion then it isn't a matter of privacy anymore; it is quite obviously a matter of religion.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

@Mywepon: You've not only misrepresented our arguments, but you've made a poor analogy. Could we please go back to the discussion about banning the Burqa?

 

Okay: you start. Since burqas were not banned before, we need a reason to ban them. What is your reason?

[jjrox32]

I'm not sure if this point has already been raised but if muslim women aren't allowed to wear burqa's or niqab's then will they stay at home (by choice or otherwise) thus isolating themselves from normal society.

 

Ignoring that point however I completely agree with France's decision to ban the burqa. It is stopping Islamic assimilation of culture and preserving French culture. The muslim dress can be seen as very intimidating to most and lets face it, if I started walking around in a veil then most would assume that I am a burglar. Allowing people to stride around in massive cloaks, covering most or even all of there face seems to pretty much be incouraging petty crimes.

The concept of Hijab is almost synonymous with sexual seggregation and the act of France banning some islamic clothing represents the government striving for gender equality.

 

I completely disagree, this isn't a matter of privacy. Unmarried muslim women are entitled to the same amount of privacy as married muslim women, if a person suddenly wants an increase in there level of privacy because of there religion then it isn't a matter of privacy anymore; it is quite obviously a matter of religion.

 

That sounds extremely xenophobic. You don't want Islamic people there because they're different to French culture? While they're at it, why not ban yamaka's and the collars that Catholic priests wear?

 

And yes, allowing Muslim women to wear a burqa totally encourages petty crimes. I mean, there's no evidence to back that up, and I've never heard of someone getting mugged by a Muslim woman, but you're right.

[Assume Nothing]

 

@Mywepon: You've not only misrepresented our arguments, but you've made a poor analogy. Could we please go back to the discussion about banning the Burqa?

 

Okay: you start. Since burqas were not banned before, we need a reason to ban them. What is your reason?

 

Could you please stop making irrelevant comments? Just because burqas weren't banned before, it doesn't mean it ought to remain so.

 

My personal stance is not to ban burqa's, but to make it extremely inconvenient to have a burqa for logical reasons, thus providing a disincentive to wear them. Examples would be inability to obtain a valid passport/driver's license, identification cards, etc.

 

The perception of burqa wearers is that they pose a risk, as their identity is unknown. They also incite fear and discomfort in general, as the public does not feel safe around people who cover their entire face.

 

I'm unsure whether this argument is going. I feel this is a pointless argument

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Could you please stop making irrelevant comments? Just because burqas weren't banned before, it doesn't mean it ought to remain so.

 

What the hell are you talking about? All current laws stay in place until theres a reason to overturn them. If we wanted to make it illegal to own a gun, we need to make a good case for why the law needs to be created.

 

If burqas were illegal to start with, we would need a good reason for them to be made legal.

My personal stance is not to ban burqa's, but to make it extremely inconvenient to have a burqa for logical reasons, thus providing a disincentive to wear them. Examples would be inability to obtain a valid passport/driver's license, identification cards, etc.

 

People who wear burqas already need to remove their burqa to get ID cards. Also, when they need to prove their identity in a bank, or at the DMV, or anything like that, they must present their ID card and reveal their face. This is all before the burqa ban legislation got passed.

 

The perception of burqa wearers is that they pose a risk, as their identity is unknown. They also incite fear and discomfort in general, as the public does not feel safe around people who cover their entire face.

 

I understand that there is MORE of a risk, but so what? Lots of stuff poses MORE of a risk. Public access to the internet poses more of a security risk than if we required everybody to obtain an internet permit/license. You need to present more of an argument. It is simple to just say "Blah blah blah its dangerous" Describe a specific scenario where banning the burqa will now protect us.

 

I'm unsure whether this argument is going. I feel this is a pointless argument

You mean your argument? Yeah, pretty much. Your argument is just "It looks scary". So? Lots of stuff is scary to lots of people. Dressing like a goth looks scary to me, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

[Assume Nothing]

 

Could you please stop making irrelevant comments? Just because burqas weren't banned before, it doesn't mean it ought to remain so.

 

What the hell are you talking about? All current laws stay in place until theres a reason to overturn them. If we wanted to make it illegal to own a gun, we need to make a good case for why the law needs to be created.

 

If burqas were illegal to start with, we would need a good reason for them to be made legal.

My personal stance is not to ban burqa's, but to make it extremely inconvenient to have a burqa for logical reasons, thus providing a disincentive to wear them. Examples would be inability to obtain a valid passport/driver's license, identification cards, etc.

 

People who wear burqas already need to remove their burqa to get ID cards. Also, when they need to prove their identity in a bank, or at the DMV, or anything like that, they must present their ID card and reveal their face. This is all before the burqa ban legislation got passed.

 

The perception of burqa wearers is that they pose a risk, as their identity is unknown. They also incite fear and discomfort in general, as the public does not feel safe around people who cover their entire face.

 

I understand that there is MORE of a risk, but so what? Lots of stuff poses MORE of a risk. Public access to the internet poses more of a security risk than if we required everybody to obtain an internet permit/license. You need to present more of an argument. It is simple to just say "Blah blah blah its dangerous" Describe a specific scenario where banning the burqa will now protect us.

 

I'm unsure whether this argument is going. I feel this is a pointless argument

You mean your argument? Yeah, pretty much. Your argument is just "It looks scary". So? Lots of stuff is scary to lots of people. Dressing like a goth looks scary to me, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

 

Way to manipulate what I said. I wasn't saying that we don't need a good reason to place a ban on burqa's, that's not my point. The point was, just because it was never banned before, it doesn't mean it should remain unbanned. I agree that we need good reasons, and I'm going to list them now.

 

You mentioned "lots of stuff poses more of a risk". That's true, but does it mean that it's acceptable? If you want an example for me to illustrate my point: If a burqa wearer commits armed robbery/assault, and there are many burqa wearers about, then how are you going to identify the robber from everyone else? The veil doesn't just cover the face, it covers the identity of the women who decide to wear them, by choice or force.

 

I'm unsure on the specifics, but where does it say that it's necessary for Muslim women to wear these veils?

 

The comment about pointless arguments: It doesn't prove to be a problem in the UK/US at this moment in time, so I don't see the point in arguing about it. It's a French ban.

 

However, I find it funny that you comment about my lack of reasoning, where you don't do much better.

[Myweponsg00d]

Way to manipulate what I said. I wasn't saying that we don't need a good reason to place a ban on burqa's, that's not my point. The point was, just because it was never banned before, it doesn't mean it should remain unbanned. I agree that we need good reasons, and I'm going to list them now.

 

You mentioned "lots of stuff poses more of a risk". That's true, but does it mean that it's acceptable? If you want an example for me to illustrate my point: If a burqa wearer commits armed robbery/assault, and there are many burqa wearers about, then how are you going to identify the robber from everyone else? The veil doesn't just cover the face, it covers the identity of the women who decide to wear them, by choice or force.

 

If someone robs a bank with a ski mask on, how can you tell him apart from anyone else who had a ski mask on?

 

If someone robs a bank and has a twin, how can you tell them apart? Let's outlaw twins.

 

Also, its not like the person with the burqa is going to disappear into a sea of people wearing burqas. Most people in France will not be wearing one. If anything, wearing a burqa will make the robber stand out.

 

If someone commits an assault in the US wearing jeans, a grey hoodie, and a full-head mask, how will you be able to identify that person?

I'm unsure on the specifics, but where does it say that it's necessary for Muslim women to wear these veils?

 

It isn't necessary for all Muslims, it depends on what you want to observe.

The comment about pointless arguments: It doesn't prove to be a problem in the UK/US at this moment in time, so I don't see the point in arguing about it. It's a French ban.

 

And I am talking about France.

 

However, I find it funny that you comment about my lack of reasoning, where you don't do much better.

 

If you feel any of my logic is unreasonable, feel free to point it out. That's the point of a discussion.