Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   banning burqas
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 61 of 188 (571986)
08-03-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-03-2010 7:37 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
So you'd ban hats, scarfs and sunglasses?
I'd ban wearing them to cover your face up, yes.
There's a woman who walks through my village in the winter (in fact, even in quite mild weather) always wearing a long shapeless coat with the hood up, gloves and a scarf covering everything but her eyes. I presume that's her choice, so the only issue is one of identification. Should she be banned from dressing like that?
In winter, hmm yes that's a good one. Damn you, stop making it difficult! I guess it would depend on how cold it is.
What about if Burka type outfits were allowed provided they had individual colour schemes or a unique number on their back for identification purposes?
No, there can still be someone different inside them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-03-2010 7:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-03-2010 9:27 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-03-2010 11:54 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-03-2010 1:04 PM Huntard has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1047 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 62 of 188 (571995)
08-03-2010 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
08-03-2010 7:15 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
Also, this is why I advocate a ban, not on burqa's, but on all (complete) face covering dress styles. But for identification purposes only.
My big problem with these sorts of arguments is the presumption that people have the right to identify you at all times. Don't we have any right to anonymity when we want it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 7:15 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 63 of 188 (571997)
08-03-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
08-03-2010 7:15 AM


Covering the Face
Hi Huntard,
Also, this is why I advocate a ban, not on burqa's, but on all (complete) face covering dress styles. But for identification purposes only.
Okay... So this is all right;
But this isn't. Right? I mean, they're covering their faces. They could be anybody.
And this is acceptable;
But this is illegal?
How about this?
Or this?
Or this?
I could go on, but you see what I mean. I think that there would be difficulties in drafting the kind of legislation you're proposing. It seems like there would at least have to be a great many exceptions, leaving the whole business very subjective indeed.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 7:15 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 9:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 188 (572001)
08-03-2010 9:19 AM


Laws are simply a sign of societies failure.
A couple questions.
Is domestic violence illegal?
As a society, are we willing to mandate individual identification?
Is the issue even something that could be addressed under law?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4964 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 65 of 188 (572003)
08-03-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Huntard
08-03-2010 7:48 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
JUC writes:
There's a woman who walks through my village in the winter... always wearing a long shapeless coat with the hood up, gloves and a scarf covering everything but her eyes. I presume that's her choice, so the only issue is one of identification. Should she be banned from dressing like that?
Huntard writes:
In winter, hmm yes that's a good one. Damn you, stop making it difficult! I guess it would depend on how cold it is.
Sorry, but I'm cursed with being an arch pragmatist!
JUC writes:
What about if Burka type outfits were allowed provided they had individual colour schemes or a unique number on their back for identification purposes?
Huntard writes:
No, there can still be someone different inside them.
True. But what if you made them remove the hood part of the Burka, and they were wearing a wig and a pair of Coke-bottle spectacles? Do you pull their hair to see if it is real or not? When exactly do you wish to invoke these identification procedures?
Are they allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet? Or rather - is anyone allowed to?
Are Burka-clad women causing so many problems that we have an urgent need to stop and identify them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 7:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 9:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 66 of 188 (572004)
08-03-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Granny Magda
08-03-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Covering the Face
Hey Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
Okay... So this is all right;
{PIC1}
Yes.
But this isn't. Right? I mean, they're covering their faces. They could be anybody.
{PIC2}
Actually, I can see their face almost entirely. Ok in my book.
And this is acceptable;
{PIC3}
Yes.
But this is illegal?
{PIC4}
Again, I can see most of the face, so this is ok.
How about this?
{PIC5}
Book him Johny, can't see a thing!
Or this?
{PIC6}
Can see the face, quite clearly actually.
Or this?
{PIC7}
This one is a bit more tricky. But asians look alike anyway, so there's no point in seing their faces.
I could go on, but you see what I mean. I think that there would be difficulties in drafting the kind of legislation you're proposing. It seems like there would at least have to be a great many exceptions, leaving the whole business very subjective indeed.
Well, the only really difficult one I would say is the last one, all sillyness aside. Yes, it's not easy to implement this, but I really see no other valid argument for banning burqa's. So if this gets defeated, I guess we have to allow them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 08-03-2010 9:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 08-03-2010 9:38 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 67 of 188 (572008)
08-03-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-03-2010 9:27 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Sorry, but I'm cursed with being an arch pragmatist!
*Takes The Lord Chimps name in vain*
True. But what if you made them remove the hood part of the Burka, and they were wearing a wig and a pair of Coke-bottle spectacles?
Depends on how much of their face it obscures.
Do you pull their hair to see if it is real or not?
Depends on the situation.
When exactly do you wish to invoke these identification procedures?
I want clear and simple visual confirmation to be possible, more in depth "confirmation" can be handled later.
Are they allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet? Or rather - is anyone allowed to?
Not when walking around, no. When riding a bike, that's different of course.
Are Burka-clad women causing so many problems that we have an urgent need to stop and identify them?
No, which is why I don't advocate this because of Burqa's. I advocate this for ease of identification. Once more, I don't fucking care what you wear, but you should be rather easily identifiable as you, don't you think?
Also, I am not talking about situations that are "special", just when walking normally on the street or sidewalk. If you want to wear a Burqa cause your sister's being forced to marry a man twice her age, on the wedding I'd say that's ok.
I hate you people for making this difficult!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-03-2010 9:27 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 68 of 188 (572009)
08-03-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Huntard
08-03-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Covering the Face
Okay, so the little spider-kid is all right. But this little bastard is toast!
Clap him in irons!
Book him Johny, can't see a thing!
Isn't it "Book him Danno"? Also, that's a woman under there, so I suppose her identity is pretty much concealed.
I'm not going to go on and on with more tedious examples, but I still think that there will be lots of problems with this one. Motorcycle helmets. Mascot costumes. Kids play masks. Medical doo-dads. Judge Dredd... Given that a pair of sunglasses and a hood is enough to disguise anyone for most practical purposes, I don't see the justification.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Linky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 9:27 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 9:51 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 69 of 188 (572013)
08-03-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Granny Magda
08-03-2010 9:38 AM


Re: Covering the Face
Granny Magda writes:
Okay, so the little spider-kid is all right. But this little bastard is toast!
Walking on the sidewalk or street without any "special" reason, yes.
Clap him in irons!
And waterboard that terrorist!
Isn't it "Book him Danno"? Also, that's a woman under there, so I suppose her identity is pretty much concealed.
If you say so, you're english after all. Could be a woman, I don't know.
I'm not going to go on and on with more tedious examples, but I still think that there will be lots of problems with this one.
No never! I deny problems!
Yeah, you're probably right. Dammit!
Motorcycle helmets.
20 to life! When walking on the sidewalk, of course.
Mascot costumes.
Allowed for their purpose. (say a game)
Kids play masks.
Allowed ofr their purpose (say, a party)
Medical doo-dads.
Allowed for their purpose. (say a open heart surgery)
Judge Dredd.
Allowed for its purpose (shouting "I am da luw!")
Given that a pair of sunglasses and a hood is enough to disguise anyone for most practical purposes, I don't see the justification.
Bah, another one bites the dust!
I hate not thinking things through before leaping into something blind. Ah well, serves me right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 08-03-2010 9:38 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 08-03-2010 10:02 AM Huntard has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1277 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 70 of 188 (572017)
08-03-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Huntard
08-03-2010 9:51 AM


Re: Covering the Face
I hate not thinking things through before leaping into something blind. Ah well, serves me right.
But...but...but, isn't that what huntards do?
Edited by subbie, : Tyop

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 9:51 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 10:05 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 71 of 188 (572019)
08-03-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by subbie
08-03-2010 10:02 AM


Re: Covering the Face
subbie writes:
But...but...but, isn't that what huntards do?
Indeed. At least it provides some things to debate about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 08-03-2010 10:02 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 188 (572024)
08-03-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
08-02-2010 9:42 PM


Burqas are inherently sexist and an assault on the dignity of both men and women, and we in free countries should ban them as an expression of antidemocratic sentiment.
I say they should outlaw burqas. No women should be forced to wear them, instead, they should wear bikinis and sell GM trucks for us. Or perhaps flash us while they're "going wild." And without a burqa, she'll be free to work the pool in a stripclub gracefully, which will lead to many men making it rain on them. This equals big bucks for the ladies...
In other words, save the feminist crap and push for equality nonsense, this is about getting back at Muslims. In that sense, however, I'm for the ban.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 08-02-2010 9:42 PM mick has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 188 (572036)
08-03-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Huntard
08-03-2010 7:48 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
Huntard writes:
I guess it would depend on how cold it is.
I've walked to work when the windchill was -53° Celsius. Scarves, hoods, balaclavas, etc. are pretty common around here for much of the year.
As far as I'm concerned, identification is a complete non-issue. If I'm just walking down the street minding my own business, no, you do not have a right to know who I am.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Huntard, posted 08-03-2010 7:48 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by dronestar, posted 08-03-2010 12:03 PM ringo has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1417
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 74 of 188 (572038)
08-03-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
08-03-2010 11:54 AM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
ringo writes:
If I'm just walking down the street minding my own business, no, you do not have a right to know who I am.
Hmmm.
I think there may be laws that the KKK cannot assemble in public with masks. Can anyone confirm? Maybe I am mistaken.
In addition to the above unconfirmed law, I should think any place where there are specific and common-sensical security concerns (airport, at DMV getting photo license, etc.), the Burqa should be banned. Elseways, I agree, no one has the right to know my identity in public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-03-2010 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 08-03-2010 12:27 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 08-03-2010 4:48 PM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 75 of 188 (572048)
08-03-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dronestar
08-03-2010 12:03 PM


Re: IS THE BURKA ISSUE A SMOKESCREEN?
dronester writes:
I think there may be laws that the KKK cannot assemble in public with masks.
I hope not. I'd be against that.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dronestar, posted 08-03-2010 12:03 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by dronestar, posted 08-03-2010 12:33 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024