ITV This Morning "Ban the burka?" poll
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
tommunster10 said:
C.A.R. said:
I know I'll get shot down for pointing this out but one of the 7/7 bombers did evade CCTV by wearing a Burka. It was only when footage was reviewed that he was picked up.
Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.
People always think they are really clever when they point that out, but ban burkas and someone does a crime and to try to evade they dress as a woman, wig, sunglasses, dress.... what do we do then? Ban dress's, ban transvestites? Ban women?Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.
Rob a bank cover face with tights...ban tights?
Smollet said:
I'm not comfortable with something I perceive as irrational and to me wearing a burka is irrational but then being uncomfortable with something that is irrational is probably irrational in itself. I'm very confused. 
Any reason why they wear the burka? Is it because we might lust after the female faces.Confused also.tommunster10 said:
I was responding to the post saying that the 7/7 bombers used burkas to evade capture via CCTV, i said nothing about going through an airport?
Couldn't they just have easily worn a hoodie, or a hat, or a ski mask, or a halloween mask? And if they had, would you be calling for the banning of hats, ski masks, halloween masks or hoodies?Pan Pan Pan said:
Surely it should be a mark of respect for the country that a person happens to be in, to follow the laws of that country.
If it is illegal to enter a bank, shop, petrol station etc with the face covered, why should it be legal to let individuals wearing a Burqha do so?
Try walking with uncovered flesh, or drinking alcohol in some other countries and a person will find themselves in jail PDQ. If they do not respect our laws, why should those of us visiting such countries pay any respect to theirs?
"If it is illegal to enter a bank, shop, petrol station etc with the face covered" It isn't.If it is illegal to enter a bank, shop, petrol station etc with the face covered, why should it be legal to let individuals wearing a Burqha do so?
Try walking with uncovered flesh, or drinking alcohol in some other countries and a person will find themselves in jail PDQ. If they do not respect our laws, why should those of us visiting such countries pay any respect to theirs?
"Try walking with uncovered flesh, or drinking alcohol in some other countries and a person will find themselves in jail PDQ." That would only happen if you had broken a law. In your example of bank, shop, petrol station etc. no law has been broken.
Do you want the UK to be as intolerant as "some other countries"?
Roman Rhodes said:
Who here has been disadvantaged when having a conversation with a woman wearing a burqa? How would the conversation have been different if they were not wearing a burqa?
There have been lots of studies on the advantages of face-to-face communications. Most are due to the disadvantages of using telephones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-to-face_interac...
I imagine it's easy to get funding for studying how a telephone call is less efficient than a face-to-face meeting. Getting funding for something that might upset the religion of peace is harder.
Murph7355 said:
AJL308 said:
People covering their faces during everyday interaction does harm other people. This is not the way in which our culture operates or has ever operated. It places people who do not cover their face at an immediate disadvantage when interacting as they have no facial body language to react to.
It's fine when you live in a culture that requires women to interact almost exclusively with other women when their faces are uncovered but not in our society.
What a load of codswallop.It's fine when you live in a culture that requires women to interact almost exclusively with other women when their faces are uncovered but not in our society.
Faces being covered harms people no more than tattoos, or a mohican does. The people feeling "harmed" by such trivia need to have a look in the mirror.
I can see that some don't like it. Just as I can with tattoos etc. I can see some may find them offensive. But you can't legislate against that otherwise who decides what is and isn't offensive? I'm not keen on shell suits. Ban them! I despise beige polyester. Ban it! That sees most of Liverpool and everyone over the age of 70 screwed in terms of wardrobe
I do tend to agree with Derek about nudity etc. So I accept that potentially undermines my stance a touch. But to be perfectly honest I'm prepared to accept that. People being harmed by a burka is more to do with their...mindset...than it is the burka wearer. Nudity where not expected is different IMO.
If you want to abolish all religious garb, then I would have a lot more sympathy with the view. I'd still think we are better off allowing people to wear what they like, but I could at least accept the view as something other than deeply prejudiced.
People going about with their faces permanently covered is harmful to our society. We interact through facial expression to a massive degree. Having one's face covered means that other people are at a disadvantage when interacting with you. It's the reason why protesters who are up to no good wear balaclavas or Guy Fawkes masks - to give themselves the advantage. It has little to do with religion per-se. It just happens that those who cover their faces most commonly do it for religious reasons.
It is entirely different to the examples you give. Tattoos and hair cuts don't obscure the face.
My opinion would be exactly the same if lots of people went about with balaclavas.
I think wearing a covering over your face as a matter of course is contrary to being human, it really serves no purpose and the intended one of modesty seems to be mainly b
ks as plenty of other Muslims manage modesty without resorting to that ridiculous get up as do women of other religions and the non religous.
I have spoken to my Muslim friends and they arent for it either, one said it comes fromt he hard line Saudi version of Islam, where he lived for years and has vowed to never go back, vile place he says.
However, banning it, no, its like telling a stroppy teenager they cant do something, they will just do it all the more to make a point.
Lots of white Brits pretend to have a deep revulsion for it but it is actually a combination of Islam being heard about so much, the sheer numbers of Muslims and the areas that are no go now, there is that lazy racism and looking for someone to blame, but there are issues with the Muslim community and how they do things, that cannot be ignored. However using the Burka as a thinkly veiled way to have a go is a bit lame, its like poor Lee Rigby, had he been killed in the same manner in Hellmand he would never have been heard of but now, sadly he has become the poster boy for "Brtain First".
The Daily Mail headlines regarding Islam all are basically "look what these bds are up to now", they make their own headlines "Infant School bans Christmas so as not to offend Muslims", the Muslims arent remotely bothered but a do gooder has turned the nativity into a "winter play" but the thickos want it to be Muslims banning all our good old fashioned christian winter fun, despite none of them ever going to church, but no it usually isnt the Muslims who just generally want to get on with life, make money and advance, there are the odd ones wanting a ruck, but they are usually try hard converts or young chaps with too much testosterone that arent allowed near women.
I know people who post every news article on Facebook where a Muslim has done something wrong, there are six million Muslims in the UK, some will of course commit crime, smae person said that 90 percfent of the jail population is Muslim, which is utter bks of course.
There seems to be a class of white Brit that is looking for reasons to hate Muslims, my thinking is that there are issues, but there are in every section of society and the stupid "Deport them all" stuff I have actually seen on FB is not going to happen despite these hard of thinking types preference.
I am sure it goes both ways, but I dont see the same folk moaning about other religions and nationaliies, Hindus, Sikhs, Poles, Chinese etc ?
Needs to be a common sense approach,
ks as plenty of other Muslims manage modesty without resorting to that ridiculous get up as do women of other religions and the non religous.I have spoken to my Muslim friends and they arent for it either, one said it comes fromt he hard line Saudi version of Islam, where he lived for years and has vowed to never go back, vile place he says.
However, banning it, no, its like telling a stroppy teenager they cant do something, they will just do it all the more to make a point.
Lots of white Brits pretend to have a deep revulsion for it but it is actually a combination of Islam being heard about so much, the sheer numbers of Muslims and the areas that are no go now, there is that lazy racism and looking for someone to blame, but there are issues with the Muslim community and how they do things, that cannot be ignored. However using the Burka as a thinkly veiled way to have a go is a bit lame, its like poor Lee Rigby, had he been killed in the same manner in Hellmand he would never have been heard of but now, sadly he has become the poster boy for "Brtain First".
The Daily Mail headlines regarding Islam all are basically "look what these b
ds are up to now", they make their own headlines "Infant School bans Christmas so as not to offend Muslims", the Muslims arent remotely bothered but a do gooder has turned the nativity into a "winter play" but the thickos want it to be Muslims banning all our good old fashioned christian winter fun, despite none of them ever going to church, but no it usually isnt the Muslims who just generally want to get on with life, make money and advance, there are the odd ones wanting a ruck, but they are usually try hard converts or young chaps with too much testosterone that arent allowed near women.I know people who post every news article on Facebook where a Muslim has done something wrong, there are six million Muslims in the UK, some will of course commit crime, smae person said that 90 percfent of the jail population is Muslim, which is utter b
ks of course.There seems to be a class of white Brit that is looking for reasons to hate Muslims, my thinking is that there are issues, but there are in every section of society and the stupid "Deport them all" stuff I have actually seen on FB is not going to happen despite these hard of thinking types preference.
I am sure it goes both ways, but I dont see the same folk moaning about other religions and nationaliies, Hindus, Sikhs, Poles, Chinese etc ?
Needs to be a common sense approach,
tommunster10 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
tommunster10 said:
C.A.R. said:
I know I'll get shot down for pointing this out but one of the 7/7 bombers did evade CCTV by wearing a Burka. It was only when footage was reviewed that he was picked up.
Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.
People always think they are really clever when they point that out, but ban burkas and someone does a crime and to try to evade they dress as a woman, wig, sunglasses, dress.... what do we do then? Ban dress's, ban transvestites? Ban women?Just to give the whole 'mistrust' thing a bit of traction. It is justified.
Rob a bank cover face with tights...ban tights?
chrispmartha said:
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
It is probably one of the most complex of arguments: should the burka be banned.
On the one hand there is the argument that in a free world we should be allowed to dress as we like.
On the other hand, most seem to prefer that genitalia be covered.
On the one hand women should be able to cover their faces if they so wish.
On the other hand, they may well be forced to under restrictive covenants of their culture or religion.
It is oppressive to force people to do something, such as leave their faces in full view.
It is oppressive to force people to do something, such as cover their faces.
I dislike women wearing face coverings as they are women. The problem is not that it is cultural but that it is cultural for women only.
It is oppressive to force people who's culture is founded on facial body language to have to see people going about in public with covered faces.On the one hand there is the argument that in a free world we should be allowed to dress as we like.
On the other hand, most seem to prefer that genitalia be covered.
On the one hand women should be able to cover their faces if they so wish.
On the other hand, they may well be forced to under restrictive covenants of their culture or religion.
It is oppressive to force people to do something, such as leave their faces in full view.
It is oppressive to force people to do something, such as cover their faces.
I dislike women wearing face coverings as they are women. The problem is not that it is cultural but that it is cultural for women only.
It is oppressive to force people to have to interact with people who have their faces covered.
If you have to interact with someone who has their face covered then you are at a disadvantage as they can see your facial expressions but you can't see theirs. Facial expression is a primary method of communication in our society - in fact in every society. It is human nature.
You then have a problem. The vast majority of people who cover their faces are Muslim women. A person cannot refuse to interact with them (especially if it is in a commercial) as it will be seen as a hate crime because of who they are. You cannot say "remove your face covering or I will not deal with you", so you are required by law to be at a disadvantage.
Einion Yrth said:
AJL308 said:
Alpinestars said:
Einion Yrth said:
Sikhs wearing turbans are not required to wear crash helmets, Sikhs may also carry Kirpans ("ceremonial" knives). I have no problem with Sikhs but really do struggle to see why they should have exemptions from law that I do not have.
You could always wear one and if stopped, say you're Sikh?However, I don't think I have ever seen it in practice. Not once. Does it ever actually happen?
I just wondered whether anyone actually availed themselves of it these days as I have never personally seen it.
alock said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who here has been disadvantaged when having a conversation with a woman wearing a burqa? How would the conversation have been different if they were not wearing a burqa?
There have been lots of studies on the advantages of face-to-face communications. Most are due to the disadvantages of using telephones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-to-face_interac...
I imagine it's easy to get funding for studying how a telephone call is less efficient than a face-to-face meeting. Getting funding for something that might upset the religion of peace is harder.
JagLover said:
Discussions about the Burka, and the Burkina in France, are all the same issue. Those loudly proclaiming they should be banned are trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease.
The disease is a militant interpretation of Islam that refuses to integrate into the western societies in which its adherents find themselves. Rather than confront this, and ask what we can do about it, the easy solution is to ban something.
Sorry but this doesn't speak for me.The disease is a militant interpretation of Islam that refuses to integrate into the western societies in which its adherents find themselves. Rather than confront this, and ask what we can do about it, the easy solution is to ban something.
I don't care that it's a Burka, specifically. There are loads of people, Muslims included, who go about in religious clothing which I have no problem with.
What bothers me is that people are covering their faces in public in the UK. That is wrong. It is wrong if it's a Burka, it's wrong if it's a balaclava and it's wrong if it's a Guy Fawkes mask. The point is that the whole intention is to cover your face so that other people can not see it. That is not the case with a full-face crash helmet or a respirator where the intention is personal safety in relation to doing specific activities.
Emanresu said:
Fair enough, ban the burka. But when you're at it, ban turbans, crosses, the Star of David etc. ban all religious items. Don't get sectarian towards only muslims. It's a very long, slippery slope leading to the demise of what is supposed to be a free country.
It isn't about being anti-Muslim. It's about people covering their faces.If people want to wear the whole Burka garb, or whatever other religious clothing, then fair enough. Just not the part which covers their face.
Roman Rhodes said:
AJL308 said:
People covering their faces during everyday interaction does harm other people. This is not the way in which our culture operates or has ever operated. It places people who do not cover their face at an immediate disadvantage when interacting as they have no facial body language to react to.
It's fine when you live in a culture that requires women to interact almost exclusively with other women when their faces are uncovered but not in our society.
Who here has been disadvantaged when having a conversation with a woman wearing a burqa? How would the conversation have been different if they were not wearing a burqa?It's fine when you live in a culture that requires women to interact almost exclusively with other women when their faces are uncovered but not in our society.
Roman Rhodes said:
alock said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who here has been disadvantaged when having a conversation with a woman wearing a burqa? How would the conversation have been different if they were not wearing a burqa?
There have been lots of studies on the advantages of face-to-face communications. Most are due to the disadvantages of using telephones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-to-face_interac...
I imagine it's easy to get funding for studying how a telephone call is less efficient than a face-to-face meeting. Getting funding for something that might upset the religion of peace is harder.
Shakermaker said:
tommunster10 said:
I was responding to the post saying that the 7/7 bombers used burkas to evade capture via CCTV, i said nothing about going through an airport?
Couldn't they just have easily worn a hoodie, or a hat, or a ski mask, or a halloween mask? And if they had, would you be calling for the banning of hats, ski masks, halloween masks or hoodies?TX.
Terminator X said:
Shakermaker said:
tommunster10 said:
I was responding to the post saying that the 7/7 bombers used burkas to evade capture via CCTV, i said nothing about going through an airport?
Couldn't they just have easily worn a hoodie, or a hat, or a ski mask, or a halloween mask? And if they had, would you be calling for the banning of hats, ski masks, halloween masks or hoodies?TX.
Roman Rhodes said:
alock said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Who here has been disadvantaged when having a conversation with a woman wearing a burqa? How would the conversation have been different if they were not wearing a burqa?
There have been lots of studies on the advantages of face-to-face communications. Most are due to the disadvantages of using telephones.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-to-face_interac...
I imagine it's easy to get funding for studying how a telephone call is less efficient than a face-to-face meeting. Getting funding for something that might upset the religion of peace is harder.
I can't have a conversation on an equal social footing with a person with their face covered so I am at a disadvantage. Because of that disadvantage I won't enter into a conversation with someone who's face is covered. I don't care whether that is with a balaclava, a mask or a Burka.
I, along with many people, don't even really like having a conversation with someone wearing sunglasses as I think that keeping them on unless very necessary is rude, quite frankly. It is dismissive of the other person and I think people often do it as some sort of personal security barrier. Notice when watching the F1 coverage and they speak to David Coulthard - he always removes his sunglasses before getting into a conversation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff