ITV This Morning "Ban the burka?" poll

[Alpinestars]

WinstonWolf said:

Alpinestars said:

This warrants a photo request. I call custard.

That's for a less contentious thread but I'll pop them up when it's good for a laugh...

This thread is perfect. It's about socially unacceptable attire.

[anonymous-user]

djdest said:

Currently on 9.5k votes, with 84% agreeing it should be banned.

That's quite a majority!

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/should-b...

74% say no now
That's quite a minority

[Einion Yrth]

I don't like burqahs, as a libertarian I object to banning things more. I just wish no-one felt the need to wear the things, because I do think that they are socially divisive.

I have no solution.

[Dindoit]

Jimboka said:

djdest said:

Currently on 9.5k votes, with 84% agreeing it should be banned.

That's quite a majority!

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/should-b...

74% say no now
That's quite a minority

The will of the people

[djdest]

I have also noticed that even without removing cookies it keeps asking you to vote if you return to view the voting.
Also, it was only on around 20-30k this morning, yet has now jumped up to over 100k

[del mar]

Roman Rhodes said:

"You cant protect / support everybodies rights." So do you want to take rights away (ban things) or give everyone the right to do anything?

Serving someone in a shop or employing them will be covered by existing legislation. You will either be permitted to discriminate in the ways you describe or not. We have anti-discrimination laws for good reason.

If wearing a face covering is an "extreme interpretation" (I don't know if it is or not) that we allow it doesn't follow that we have to allow other "extreme interpretations" such as "kill all non-believers" does it?

It is not a hard one to work through.

Dress modestly.

How would you define that ?

I look around the office and can see a couple of knees, heaven forbid even an elbow, yet they are all dressed "modestly".
Surely if you have to cover yourself head to toe including your face in a black sheet that is a fairly extreme take on it ?

So once again we are back to saying Islam is ok but not chapters 2,4 and 7 because we don't like those ones.

The idea of rights is the Bain of modern society, we will end up in knots trying to work out whose rights are important.

Swiss child refuses to shake his teachers hand.
We are supportive of his right not to have to shake his teachers hand if he doesn't want to. We will fight and argue amongst ourselves to protect his rights.
However
He won't shake his teachers hand as she is a woman and as a Muslim he feels it beneath him to touch her hand.

So whose rights are we now supportive of ?

[anonymous-user]

I see some pages have been removed.

[Alpinestars]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have the same problem on my train journey with people who wear headphones. See my post above.

[irocfan]

Alpinestars said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have the same problem on my train journey with people who wear headphones. See my post above.

There is little difference there, I wonder if you can guess what it is?







That's right headphone wearers generally remove them whilst talking (at least polite ones do)... burka clad women not so much

[Digga]

Roman Rhodes said:

As others have said, banning the burqa comes across a simplistic and populist attempt to address the symptoms rather than the issues (an harmonious society, equal rights etc. etc. etc.).

I think you're correct in saying that the burka - certainly it's increasing popularity - is a symptom of a divergence away from integration. That certain groups are adopting the practice, as opposed to being newly arrived immigrants unaware of the difference in broader culture in the UK, is a concern and speaks of a widening gap in integration - almost willful isolationism.

I think this goes back to much that has been discussed (and which most of us understood decades ago) in the Casey Report. Whilst I'm very uncomfortable with a ban on face covering, I also think those who practice it should not and cannot expect 'equal' treatment as ordinary citizens (e.g. some shops may refuse service and you may be barred from certain locations and you may be required to remove covering for security reasons) which is not to say they should be the target of abuse or outright intolerance.

[Alpinestars]

irocfan said:

There is little difference there, I wonder if you can guess what it is?







That's right headphone wearers generally remove them whilst talking (at least polite ones do)... burka clad women not so much

Have you tried talking to one on a morning train? They get all superior on you.




Chill out.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

AJL308 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

"You cant protect / support everybodies rights." So do you want to take rights away (ban things) or give everyone the right to do anything?

Serving someone in a shop or employing them will be covered by existing legislation. You will either be permitted to discriminate in the ways you describe or not. We have anti-discrimination laws for good reason.

If wearing a face covering is an "extreme interpretation" (I don't know if it is or not) that we allow it doesn't follow that we have to allow other "extreme interpretations" such as "kill all non-believers" does it?

In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet.

If two people have to interact in a social situation and one of them has their face covered then that person has the social advantage over the other. It is that simple.

"In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet." IF that is the case then it's probably because people don't wear crash helmets for religious reasons don't you think?

Has someone taken "social advantage" (whatever that is) of you?

There is no religious requirement to cover your face, it's a Saudi throwback to treating their women as chattels.

Is the burqa worn for religious reasons?: Yes

Is a crash helmet worn for religious reasons?: No

It isn't a difficult distinction to understand. Requirement or otherwise is irrelevant.

In any event, why wouldn't someone serve a person wearing a burqa? I can't think of a practical reason so is it just personal preference/prejudice?

[NISMOgtr]

errr, just checked the votes.....78% say no out of about 115K votes..........

[WinstonWolf]

Roman Rhodes said:

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

AJL308 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

"You cant protect / support everybodies rights." So do you want to take rights away (ban things) or give everyone the right to do anything?

Serving someone in a shop or employing them will be covered by existing legislation. You will either be permitted to discriminate in the ways you describe or not. We have anti-discrimination laws for good reason.

If wearing a face covering is an "extreme interpretation" (I don't know if it is or not) that we allow it doesn't follow that we have to allow other "extreme interpretations" such as "kill all non-believers" does it?

In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet.

If two people have to interact in a social situation and one of them has their face covered then that person has the social advantage over the other. It is that simple.

"In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet." IF that is the case then it's probably because people don't wear crash helmets for religious reasons don't you think?

Has someone taken "social advantage" (whatever that is) of you?

There is no religious requirement to cover your face, it's a Saudi throwback to treating their women as chattels.

Is the burqa worn for religious reasons?: Yes

Is a crash helmet worn for religious reasons?: No

It isn't a difficult distinction to understand. Requirement or otherwise is irrelevant.

In any event, why wouldn't someone serve a person wearing a burqa? I can't think of a practical reason so is it just personal preference/prejudice?

There is NO religious requirement for it, if someone chooses to wear one for personal reasons they have no one but themselves to blame if they find they are disadvantaged. No one likes the look of chavs in balaclavas and hoodies, it's got nothing to do with religion or race.

[CrutyRammers]

Digga said:

think you're correct in saying that the burka - certainly it's increasing popularity - is a symptom of a divergence away from integration. That certain groups are adopting the practice, as opposed to being newly arrived immigrants unaware of the difference in broader culture in the UK, is a concern and speaks of a widening gap in integration - almost willful isolationism.

I think this goes back to much that has been discussed (and which most of us understood decades ago) in the Casey Report. Whilst I'm very uncomfortable with a ban on face covering, I also think those who practice it should not and cannot expect 'equal' treatment as ordinary citizens (e.g. some shops may refuse service and you may be barred from certain locations and you may be required to remove covering for security reasons) which is not to say they should be the target of abuse or outright intolerance.

Spot on as usual sir.

[anonymous-user]

del mar said:

Roman Rhodes said:

"You cant protect / support everybodies rights." So do you want to take rights away (ban things) or give everyone the right to do anything?

Serving someone in a shop or employing them will be covered by existing legislation. You will either be permitted to discriminate in the ways you describe or not. We have anti-discrimination laws for good reason.

If wearing a face covering is an "extreme interpretation" (I don't know if it is or not) that we allow it doesn't follow that we have to allow other "extreme interpretations" such as "kill all non-believers" does it?

It is not a hard one to work through.

Dress modestly.

How would you define that ?

I look around the office and can see a couple of knees, heaven forbid even an elbow, yet they are all dressed "modestly".
Surely if you have to cover yourself head to toe including your face in a black sheet that is a fairly extreme take on it ?

So once again we are back to saying Islam is ok but not chapters 2,4 and 7 because we don't like those ones.

The idea of rights is the Bain of modern society, we will end up in knots trying to work out whose rights are important.

Swiss child refuses to shake his teachers hand.
We are supportive of his right not to have to shake his teachers hand if he doesn't want to. We will fight and argue amongst ourselves to protect his rights.
However
He won't shake his teachers hand as she is a woman and as a Muslim he feels it beneath him to touch her hand.

So whose rights are we now supportive of ?

I honestly don't think it is a struggle to understand what aspects of an "extreme interpretation" of a religion are acceptable.

Covering your face unless required for practical reasons (safety and security primarily): Acceptable.

"Killing all non-believers": Unacceptable.

Taking your Swiss example, the Swiss courts have ruled: Unacceptable.

"The idea of rights is the Bain of modern society, we will end up in knots trying to work out whose rights are important." So you'd prefer it if no-one had any rights? Easier to avoid getting in knots if we don't invent lots of hypothetical 'what ifs'. We have a system of laws in place designed to support a fair and harmonious society. Their success is a different debate. This debate is about introducing another law - to ban the burqa. My view is that such a law would not be helpful, in fact quite the reverse. That is not the same as saying the burqa is a 'good thing' or that their aren't issues regarding integration and segregation - it is simply saying that these issues are more complex and need a considered approach if we want a more cohesive society. The recent Casey report raises many good points.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Roman Rhodes said:

As others have said, banning the burqa comes across a simplistic and populist attempt to address the symptoms rather than the issues (an harmonious society, equal rights etc. etc. etc.).

I think you're correct in saying that the burka - certainly it's increasing popularity - is a symptom of a divergence away from integration. That certain groups are adopting the practice, as opposed to being newly arrived immigrants unaware of the difference in broader culture in the UK, is a concern and speaks of a widening gap in integration - almost willful isolationism.

I think this goes back to much that has been discussed (and which most of us understood decades ago) in the Casey Report. Whilst I'm very uncomfortable with a ban on face covering, I also think those who practice it should not and cannot expect 'equal' treatment as ordinary citizens (e.g. some shops may refuse service and you may be barred from certain locations and you may be required to remove covering for security reasons) which is not to say they should be the target of abuse or outright intolerance.

I would generally agree. I think the security issue (airports etc.) has been covered (no pun intended!). I do rather have an issue with refusing service in shops though - simply, why?

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

AJL308 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

"You cant protect / support everybodies rights." So do you want to take rights away (ban things) or give everyone the right to do anything?

Serving someone in a shop or employing them will be covered by existing legislation. You will either be permitted to discriminate in the ways you describe or not. We have anti-discrimination laws for good reason.

If wearing a face covering is an "extreme interpretation" (I don't know if it is or not) that we allow it doesn't follow that we have to allow other "extreme interpretations" such as "kill all non-believers" does it?

In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet.

If two people have to interact in a social situation and one of them has their face covered then that person has the social advantage over the other. It is that simple.

"In the real world if you refused to serve someone because they covered their face with a Burka then you would get done with a racially aggravated/hate crime. No two ways about it. That is one of the reasons why it is divisive to society. No one would get done for refusing to serve someone with a full-face crash helmet." IF that is the case then it's probably because people don't wear crash helmets for religious reasons don't you think?

Has someone taken "social advantage" (whatever that is) of you?

There is no religious requirement to cover your face, it's a Saudi throwback to treating their women as chattels.

Is the burqa worn for religious reasons?: Yes

Is a crash helmet worn for religious reasons?: No

It isn't a difficult distinction to understand. Requirement or otherwise is irrelevant.

In any event, why wouldn't someone serve a person wearing a burqa? I can't think of a practical reason so is it just personal preference/prejudice?

There is NO religious requirement for it, if someone chooses to wear one for personal reasons they have no one but themselves to blame if they find they are disadvantaged. No one likes the look of chavs in balaclavas and hoodies, it's got nothing to do with religion or race.

Is there a "requirement" for a Christian to wear a crucifix? No there isn't. Does a Christian have the right to wear this religious symbol? Yes they do (see British Airways case). They are wearing it for religious AND personal reasons.

Religion isn't simply about requirements, it isn't a chemical formula where only X, Y and Z elements create A religion. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

[CrutyRammers]

As I said before, it's not people choosing what to wear that is the problem. It's granting special treatment to certain groups which is the problem.

[Digga]

Roman Rhodes said:

Digga said:

Roman Rhodes said:

As others have said, banning the burqa comes across a simplistic and populist attempt to address the symptoms rather than the issues (an harmonious society, equal rights etc. etc. etc.).

I think you're correct in saying that the burka - certainly it's increasing popularity - is a symptom of a divergence away from integration. That certain groups are adopting the practice, as opposed to being newly arrived immigrants unaware of the difference in broader culture in the UK, is a concern and speaks of a widening gap in integration - almost willful isolationism.

I think this goes back to much that has been discussed (and which most of us understood decades ago) in the Casey Report. Whilst I'm very uncomfortable with a ban on face covering, I also think those who practice it should not and cannot expect 'equal' treatment as ordinary citizens (e.g. some shops may refuse service and you may be barred from certain locations and you may be required to remove covering for security reasons) which is not to say they should be the target of abuse or outright intolerance.

I would generally agree. I think the security issue (airports etc.) has been covered (no pun intended!). I do rather have an issue with refusing service in shops though - simply, why?

For the same reason as many filling stations clearly instruct motorcyclists to remove crash helmets before going to pay for fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. Courtesy to the staff and other customers.