[quote=“politbureau”]
The valid issue is wearing full-face coverings in sensitive public areas such as banks and mass transit venues.[/quote]
Thank you, we can agree on this.
I don’t think ever before had western culture had laws or contemplated what to do with people that refuse to show their face until the Burka came along. The Belgium law apparently is worded thus.
In other words someone who walked around all day with a balaclava or mickey mouse mask would also be breaking the law. But I accept its introduction is do to the use of the Burka.
Some wear as a choice some do not, and without legislation, there is no way to differentiate from those who want to, and those who are forced to through peer pressure. An absence of legislation is then used by those who wish to force their idealistic views on those around them.
Often laws are made where the vast majority suffer due to the actions of a few extremists, we all have to pay more for a plane ticket now and have longer check in times because of a few extremists. Perhaps the majority of Muslims should be more vocal in criticizing and distancing themselves from these radicals.
Democratisation has led to rule by people who know nothing of law or politics. Reaping and sowing. You can’t give everyone a voice and then complain about people speaking: half the people with a vote are of below average intelligence and what they want is as important as what you want, probably more if depending on which part of your country you live in.
It is what it is. Most people see democracy as ‘I demand what I want and the consequences are the job of ‘the system’ to fix.’, not as a series of checks and balances, or trade-offs to get what the group needs. Mememe culture.
Immigration means here gets like there. We all want to be liberal and welcoming and be good world citizens, but we don’t want to pay for it, or have our ways of life changed. Europe doesn’t have the stomach to deny asylum or econo-tourism, or to make demands on immigrants. Yet it balks at not being Italy or England any more. You can’t have it all.
Does the law single out the burqa, politbureau? I thought it said that “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face”. Then again, I haven’t read the law myself, so I maybe that’s not correct.
On the other hand, I guess that even if that were what the law actually says, the counter-argument would be: “Well, okay, technically, the actual text of the law creates a blanket ban on face-covering clothing of any type. So, yes, technically, what it does is exactly what politbureau says and bans “full-face coverings in sensitive places” (i.e. ski masks/balaclavas and so on would be included as well) rather than singling out the burqa specifically. But… c’mon – we all know that the real reason that they are doing it is because they hate muslims.”
Well, we have some middle ground as you accept in certain places the showing of the face is an issue, banks, government buildings.
How about the case in England where a woman teacher was dismissed for wearing a niqab while teaching children. She appealed and said it was discrimination, personally I think the kids react well to facial expressions. Or the case in Canada where a woman complained she wasn’t allowed to have her drivers license photo taken with a full burka.
Common sense has to kick in at some point. Buttercups right, we expect to be able to see the face of the person we talk to, thats our culture, its considered polite, again this is a tiny minority demanding everyone around them bend and adjust their ways to accommodate practices that are abhorrent to the vast majority in the west.
She was a classroom assistant in a predominantly ESL primary classroom. Her job is to talk to kids and teach them English. How’s she supposed to model articulation of sounds with her face covered? Disgrace that she got a payout. Wonder if those kids got a classroom assistant at all, the following year?
Yes, she has the choice to wear what she likes, but not to the detriment of others. She had the responsibility to help those kids but she chose to cash in instead. Disgraceful.
funny story that has parallels to the security issue in all this:
When I was in college, my roommate returned one night from working at a stagette party. He was asked to show up in a Gorilla suit and do a strip tease for the bride to be.
Later that night, with the costume kicking around the apartment, I thought it would be funny to put the suit on and cruise around town, checking out the latenight haunts.
I was stopped by a police cruiser and told to go home and not to wander the streets in the costume at night. I didn’t break any laws, or harass anyone.
Not sure if there is an actual law I was breaking, but the police were adamant about it. And this was very much pre-9/11.
What happens if I am wearing a burqa?
There is a lot of unjust anger directed at Muslims, and this practice (of wearing a burqa) is a particularly easy target, but in Western culture the need to see people’s faces is paramount (it is why all our ID is adorned with it) and actually allows us more freedoms and safety.
I have no problem with women wearing burqas, but they must realize that whenever they need to show ID and/or their face, they will be expected to do so.
This is just as reasonable as asking Western women to wear head coverings when in certain Islamic countries.
Ok, which means those making laws can either deliberate over all the possible scenarios that might be valid reasons for showing their face, in the street, in the office, which jobs, could you drive with it, who has the right to demand the face be shown, basically how to bend our society to accommodate a group that often is the most vocal and venomous towards us.
Or just ban it, then perhaps consider exceptions to the rule .
I agree with this sentiment. I believe women should be free* to wear the burqa if they so choose. I’m all about freedom and equal rights for all. But since the primary way humans identify each other is via facial features (imagine if we identified each other the way dogs do!), when identification is necessary (going through immigration and customs, opening a bank account, etc.), burqa wearers or wearers of any kind of facial covering** should have to remove their face coverings for identification. Perhaps, for reasons of religious sensitivity, the burqa wearer can have the option of being identified by a female examiner.
*The question of whether the burqa itself is a form of oppression depends on whether the woman is wearing it because she freely chooses to do so, or whether she is being forced to do so.
**Exceptions could be made for burn patients and the like.
[quote=“Buttercup”]Immigration means here gets like there. We all want to be liberal and welcoming and be good world citizens, but we don’t want to pay for it, or have our ways of life changed. [/quote]‘Don’t want our ways of life changed’ is right. But you’ve got the first half of that backwards. Immigration means the source country gets more like the destination. People leave for many reasons. They find new solutions to old problems, adopt new practices: that knowledge makes it way back to the old country.
What??? Canada has had Chinese immigrants for a hundred years and I challange you to find any indication that China has gotten more like Canada as a result of these immigrants. You’re not going to tell me that the Quebec separtist movement somehow inspired the cultural revolution? There has been mass migration of mexicans into the US for decades and I have seen no evidence that Mexico is begining to resemble the US.
On the topic of Burqas I’m of two minds. On one hand I don’t really care what someone else wants to wear. If some lady wants to wear and article of clothing that covers every part of her body but her eyes so be it. It’s not hurting me. Frankly I’d be more in favour of banning fat chicks from wearing spandex.
On the other hand a society has a right to make its own rules. I have a hard time mustering much sympathy for muslims in Western countries who complain bitterly about restrictions on such things when they are completely intolerent to other cultures themselves.
What??? Canada has had Chinese immigrants for a hundred years and I challange you to find any indication that China has gotten more like Canada as a result of these immigrants.[/quote] The entrepreneurial class in Hong Kong adds a lot of noise, but overseas Chinese returning to ‘to get rich is glorious’ China… yeah, they’re having a big impact.
[quote=“Gman”]You’re not going to tell me that the Quebec separtist movement somehow inspired the cultural revolution?[/quote]No, that’d be silly. For one thing, the Chinese-Canadian community in Quebec is miniscule.
[quote=“Gman”]There has been mass migration of Mexicans into the US for decades and I have seen no evidence that Mexico is begining to resemble the US.[/quote]No? Who’d Vicente Fox work for before giving the PRI the boot after seven decades in power? What policies does Felipe Calderón espouse? Calderon’s election was close, but they were both freely and fairly elected: what’s that say about the people’s aspirations? They’ve now got a fair number of (formerly American) manufacturing jobs, they’re still voting with their feet in favour of an American lifestyle… just because it’s not clear in the culture on the street doesn’t mean the influence isn’t there. There’s scads of very well-done research on social, cultural, and technological transfers due to immigration.
Does the law single out the burqa, politbureau? I thought it said that “no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face”. Then again, I haven’t read the law myself, so I maybe that’s not correct.
On the other hand, I guess that even if that were what the law actually says, the counter-argument would be: “Well, okay, technically, the actual text of the law creates a blanket ban on face-covering clothing of any type. So, yes, technically, what it does is exactly what politbureau says and bans “full-face coverings in sensitive places” (i.e. ski masks/balaclavas and so on would be included as well) rather than singling out the burqa specifically. But… c’mon – we all know that the real reason that they are doing it is because they hate muslims.”[/quote]
It’s specifically called the burqa ban even though the law is worded neutrally and the Belgian MP who proposed the law, Daniel Bacquelaine, has this to say about it:
[quote]It’s necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."[/quote]:which I’d say pretty clearly establishes the fact that his target is the burqa, even though only about thirty women in Belgium are said to wear one in public.
Meanwhile other masks and clothing worn by thousands in public annually which “totally mask and enclose an individual” but are connected with Christianity instead are exempted from the new Belgian law:
No information as to whether wearing full-face helmets that totally mask an individual while on public streets will result in a possible seven days in jail but I’d say it’s doubtful.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]
I have no problem with women wearing burqas, but they must realize that whenever they need to show ID and/or their face, they will be expected to do so.
[/quote]
Ok, which means those making laws can either deliberate over all the possible scenarios that might be valid reasons for showing their face, in the street, in the office, which jobs, could you drive with it, who has the right to demand the face be shown, basically how to bend our society to accommodate a group that often is the most vocal and venomous towards us.
Or just ban it, then perhaps consider exceptions to the rule .[/quote]
Now you are creating a witch hunt scenario, which most Western countries protect against by law.
let me address each of your comments piece by piece and tell you the logical way to deal with it.
1-In the street: free to wear a face cover
2-In the office: up to the corporation and their required dress code
3-which jobs: ones where the corporation or boss (small business) allow it
4-driving: No, it impairs vision (women are often banned from driving in Burqa wearing countries)
5-who has the right to demand face be shown: 1-police (in situations where ID is demanded); 2-security guards or customer service people in venues or scenarios where you need to present ID (liquor store, or entering an office as a visitor); 3-immigration officers
basically whenever you have to prove that you are who you say you are, that is how our society functions, and to argue against that is a waste of time.
I’m not sure of the status of the Easter penitents.
If sumptuary laws are really going to make a come back, I’d like to ban Speedos and pants hanging off the ass. Those are really offensive and incompatible with a well-functioning society.
Why not? Once upon a time, a West German bureaucrat banned neck ties as phallic symbols, and Iran is now banning decadent Western hairstyles. Might as well get with the program.
[quote=“Jaboney”]There’s a similar proposal in Spain.
I’m not sure of the status of the Easter penitents.
If sumptuary laws are really going to make a come back, I’d like to ban Speedos and pants hanging off the ass. Those are really offensive and incompatible with a well-functioning society.
Why not? Once upon a time, a West German bureaucrat banned neck ties as phallic symbols, and Iran is now banning decadent Western hairstyles. Might as well get with the program.[/quote]
asking someone to show their face in a venue where ID is required is hardly like any of the scenarios you mention.
Asking to confirm ID hardly requires an outright ban.
Funny, a game company just proposed requiring gamers to use their real ID to cut down on anti-social behavior. The gamers rebelled en mass, fearing negative consequences of various sorts, including discrimination in employment. The company backed down. As on forumosa, anonymity is to be protected: to some extent, posters and gamers are free to stalk, harass and abuse one another, numerous times daily. It is, after all, “only the Internet”… no matter how much time and energy is invested in these communities. But a woman silently passed on the street or in the market? It’s a sign of social collapse!
Silly. We get along well enough behind veils of anonymity online when we intimately share a community. Why not casually, on occasion, on the street?
I’d rather that no one went veiled. I’d rather that posters behaved neighborly online. My wishes aren’t likely going to be granted. That’s fine. If necessary, I can confront or ignore some of you, or confront or shun people on the street. In either case, it ought to be the case that you really have to go the extra distance to warrant any manner of police action.
[/quote]