Should Britain follow France and ban the Burka?

[gavva]

Italy has also now banned the burka...

[JustMe]

Great Britain should not be following France or Italy over anything as we are an independent nation capable of making our own decisions. That said I do not believe it is acceptable for us to ban the Burka as a Religious dress any more than we should be banning the little skull caps worn by some Jews or even the clothes worn by Priests and Vicars.

 

That said there is perhaps some justification for a ban on whole face obscuring clothes worn in public on security grounds but I do warn those in Shetland that such a ban could well extend to Up Helly Aa costumes.

[turningright]

That said there is perhaps some justification for a ban on whole face obscuring clothes worn in public on security grounds but I do warn those in Shetland that such a ban could well extend to Up Helly Aa costumes.

 

Whaaaatt.....given how tenuous that argument is i doubt many will take your warning very seriously, carrying a big burning torch whilst wearing a comical suit wouldnt be the best way to instigate a covert, tactical jihad campaign.

[paulb]

don't forget that carrying bladed weapons is an offence. we had better call in the riot police. but maybe they could then sue the police for anti transvestite behaviour. if you start to ban one thing it will lead onto others. its best to keep the law out of cultural things. people need to just except other for what they are.

[Guest Anonymous]

That said there is perhaps some justification for a ban on whole face obscuring clothes worn in public on security grounds but I do warn those in Shetland that such a ban could well extend to Up Helly Aa costumes.

 

Whaaaatt.....given how tenuous that argument is i doubt many will take your warning very seriously, carrying a big burning torch whilst wearing a comical suit wouldnt be the best way to instigate a covert, tactical jihad campaign.

well there you go , canna have bans for wan n no bans for aa, which i think was the tongue in cheek point. Incidentally i agree. Banning anything just to persecute one particular faction is not part of being a free n just civilised society, which in turn of course can include how free n just are we and whats hipocritical (many spelling mistakes n poor grammer yes)

[Evil Inky]

... you cant walk into a bank with a full face motorcycle helmet on, motorcyclist dont scream racism or motorcyclism or whatever else.

There's a big difference between not being allowed to wear a particular item of clothing in a bank, and not being allowed to wear a particular item of clothing in any public place. Motorcyclists would be up in arms if full face helmets were completely banned.

[EM]

Great Britain should not be ....

Interesting that you use the term Great Britain rather than United Kingdom. I remember being quite shocked back in the 80s hearing that it was against the law in Northern Ireland to wear any kind of mask. I've no idea if that is still on the statute book over there, but I'd expect it probably is. Not good.

[EM]

Whaaaatt.....given how tenuous that argument is i doubt many will take your warning very seriously, carrying a big burning torch whilst wearing a comical suit wouldnt be the best way to instigate a covert, tactical jihad campaign.

I don't think the point is tenuous at all. It is not just specific events like UHA where guizing is done. Shetland is incredibly keen on dressing up throughout the year, stag/hen nights, birthday buses, ... The point is valid. General bans are cans of worms and bound to result in hypocritical selective enforcement, selective Muslim specific bans are similarly unwelcome.

 

The incident which particularly disgusted me was when the slimey journalist John Simpson disguised himself with female muslim garb to travel into hostile territory. That was, in my opinion, remarkably unprofessional, selfish and damaging. It should have led to him losing his press card rather than the "gosh what a lark" response it received.

[MJ]

... you cant walk into a bank with a full face motorcycle helmet on, motorcyclist dont scream racism or motorcyclism or whatever else.

Oh yes they do, I've had some really irate customers when I've asked them to remove their helmets.

[JustMe]

So two points to clarify. Britain is GREAT while France is just France. Or maybe Britain was great. Of course mentioning UHA was a bit tongue in cheek although any laws eventually passed concerning the wearing of full face disguises would have to apply to all. Having a law just banning the wearing of the Burka would be persecuting a minority which would not be acceptable in this day and age.

[Styles]

The majority should rule, so while we are I think opressive cultural deviancies like the burka should be stopped like honour killing, women being second class citizens, etc as people try to introduce here there diverse culture.

[Michael]

So minorities and their interests don't matter because they aren't the majority?

[unlinkedstudent]

So minorities and their interests don't matter because they aren't the majority?

 

Well, slightly off topic but on a relevant parallel or example is sadomasochism. Within the law, you cannot go to the extremes of sadomasochism even though some would like to. I'm not sure on the basis of Scottish law, but much of English law is based on the "harm principle". This "harm principle" has also been applied in relation to sadomasochism in the Netherlands, where they have a more liberal approach to what some may regard as sexual deviancy (their attitude to swinging, etc.). Even there, sadomasochists are only allowed to go so far.

 

The point I'm attempting to make (whilst I'm not fully awake) is that sadomasochists are not the majority and are a minority. Whilst their views have been heard, the "harm principle" has been applied in law but I'm not sure whether it was deemed as to protect the individual or to protect the cultural views of a nation.

 

In parallel, wearing the burka is not, as far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) a religious thing but is a cultural thing. In countries taking the decision to ban the burka, have they reached the decision in order to protect the women or for reasons of security or to maintain the respective country's stance on their cultural beliefs, as opposed to those of the minority?

[Guest Anonymous]

So minorities and their interests don't matter because they aren't the majority?

2 points , Shetlanders are a minority and what say our way of speaking was banned , or fire festivals banned ? what then eh? , and muslims (not all fanatical ones) are about a third of the world population, so theres a debate there in itself, second point, banning this banning that banning everything n introducing back door laws in the guise of anti-terrorism is the mark of a totalitarian state which is not a free democratic country

[paulb]

well said fleabee.

thus making us as bad as the states that we claim to be evil.

 

how unlink went from a burka to bondage and pain is a little worrying.

i think most people find the the burka extreme. even most muslims but using unlinks harm principle who are they hurting.

 

most muslims would not want to wear it. but if we start making an issue guess what will become popular.