ITV This Morning "Ban the burka?" poll

[Alpinestars]

CrutyRammers said:

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.

What about the flip side of not allowing a certain group of people (whichever group for the avoidance of any doubt), to dress in accordance with the law?

[Digga]

Alpinestars said:

CrutyRammers said:

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.

What about the flip side of not allowing a certain group of people (whichever group for the avoidance of any doubt), to dress in accordance with the law?

There's no group discrimination. If anything there's positive discrimination of Burkas, which is even dafter: https://forum.motorcyclenews.com/topic/79285/petro...

[Alpinestars]

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

CrutyRammers said:

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.

What about the flip side of not allowing a certain group of people (whichever group for the avoidance of any doubt), to dress in accordance with the law?

There's no group discrimination. If anything there's positive discrimination of Burkas, which is even dafter: https://forum.motorcyclenews.com/topic/79285/petro...

Who decides? What if I don't like shell suits, tatoos, hoodies? I can't relate to those "type of people" so it harms my integration with them.

Hopefully you get the point.

It's not an easy one. I can see both sides of the argument.

[Dindoit]

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

CrutyRammers said:

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.

What about the flip side of not allowing a certain group of people (whichever group for the avoidance of any doubt), to dress in accordance with the law?

There's no group discrimination. If anything there's positive discrimination of Burkas, which is even dafter: https://forum.motorcyclenews.com/topic/79285/petro...

There is no legal requirement for helmets to be removed in petrol stations. Many request removal and will attempt to refuse service but they do so without the law to back them up. The reason for requesting removal, often before filling, is not for "courtesy to staff and customers" it's to reduce the risk of people filling up and running without paying and also because helmets are/were the chosen disguise for holding up petrol stations.

A Bill which would have banned face coverings in public inc. helmets, burqa was rejected 2yrs ago.

[WinstonWolf]

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

A small cross isn't the same as hiding your face. The only religious requirement is to dress modestly, that's easy to do without disadvantaging yourself.

Hiding your face is choosing not to integrate, the wearers need to be protected from indoctrination...

[Digga]

Dindoit said:

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

CrutyRammers said:

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.

What about the flip side of not allowing a certain group of people (whichever group for the avoidance of any doubt), to dress in accordance with the law?

There's no group discrimination. If anything there's positive discrimination of Burkas, which is even dafter: https://forum.motorcyclenews.com/topic/79285/petro...

There is no legal requirement for helmets to be removed in petrol stations. Many request removal and will attempt to refuse service but they do so without the law to back them up. The reason for requesting removal, often before filling, is not for "courtesy to staff and customers" it's to reduce the risk of people filling up and running without paying and also because helmets are/were the chosen disguise for holding up petrol stations.

A Bill which would have banned face coverings in public inc. helmets, burqa was rejected 2yrs ago.

I'm not implying there is a law, but merely that people wearing crash helmets are also subject to public criticism.

[stitched]

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 i ntended!). I do rather have an issue with refusing service in shops though - simply, why?

I really struggle to believe it is not blindingly obvious. Shop workers are not expected to defend the till, tills contain money, some people like to steal money instead of earning it. Wearing a disguise in a shop is unfair to those who work there.

[Countdown]

stitched said:

I really struggle to believe it is not blindingly obvious. Shop workers are not expected to defend the till, tills contain money, some people like to steal money instead of earning it. Wearing a disguise in a shop is unfair to those who work there.

Somebody who's willing to commit armed robbery isn't going to think "Ah, it's against the law to wear a Hijab so i won't".

[J4CKO]

Thing is, it isnt ever going to be banned is it, with all the unpleasant stuff going on in society (see the thread on knife crime) a few Muslim women walking round dressed like the Grim reaper isnt a big issue, I dont like it as a concept, it is reprehensible and it looks ridiculous but how many actual problems is it actually causing, save for people whinging about it, Muslim women sometimes wear a veil.

Change to it needs to come from within the Muslim community, but as generally they are generally quite conservative that may take a while.

Non Muslims going on about it all the time isnt going to change it, and there are loads of other things the Muslim community engage in like marrying cousins causing birth defects, honour killings, FGM, forced marriage etc etc that actually breaks the laws of this country, the Burqa doesnt so why invent a law ? sort all the other st out first.

Obviously all cultures have their issues, not singling Muslims out before anyone cries "racist" but it is one of those threads, as that is what really annoys me, i.e. not being able to make an observation without that card coming out, we are still allowed to have an opinion on folk other than white Brits as far as I am concerned, and I voice my opinion on the stuff that group does as well. You cant compare that the bloke in the pub saying "I fking hate P****" is the same as "I believe FGM in the Muslim community is wrong and should be stopped", if anything, for me, the Burqa thing is causing more problems than it solves as it does seem to be used as something to stir hatred rather than actually anyone being that bothered or inconvenienced by not seeing a Muslim womans face.

[Digga]

Countdown said:

stitched said:

I really struggle to believe it is not blindingly obvious. Shop workers are not expected to defend the till, tills contain money, some people like to steal money instead of earning it. Wearing a disguise in a shop is unfair to those who work there.

Somebody who's willing to commit armed robbery isn't going to think "Ah, it's against the law to wear a Hijab so i won't".

That's a very twisted way of looking at the issue and, in fact, quite false. The ability to disguise one's identity - by whatever means; crash helmets, burkas or anything else - offers the miscreant the ideal advantage and, it will be used. It is grossly unfair on (often very lowly-paid, compared to the takings in the till) shop staff for them to have any fear of such attach and, as such, the idea that faces should be uncovered is good one.

[stitched]

Countdown said:

stitched said:

I really struggle to believe it is not blindingly obvious. Shop workers are not expected to defend the till, tills contain money, some people like to steal money instead of earning it. Wearing a disguise in a shop is unfair to those who work there.

Somebody who's willing to commit armed robbery isn't going to think "Ah, it's against the law to wear a Hijab so i won't".

Not the point I meant to make.
I have no issue with clothing which hides identity in a place where identity is not an issue, however if I choose to protect my employees from the stress of masked people near the till please do not think it is islamaphobia at work.
Banks, airports, shops etc disguises should be banned at all times.
In public if there is a heightened level of risk from terrorism then disguises should be banned.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

stitched said:

I really struggle to believe it is not blindingly obvious. Shop workers are not expected to defend the till, tills contain money, some people like to steal money instead of earning it. Wearing a disguise in a shop is unfair to those who work there.

Somebody who's willing to commit armed robbery isn't going to think "Ah, it's against the law to wear a Hijab so i won't".

Exactly. We're talking about a situation where it is legal to wear a burqa and someone refuses to serve them. If they were an armed robber do you think the shop assistant's stony silence is going to make the robber turn on his heels? So no, it's not blindingly obvious.

[TTwiggy]

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

A small cross isn't the same as hiding your face. The only religious requirement is to dress modestly, that's easy to do without disadvantaging yourself.

Hiding your face is choosing not to integrate, the wearers need to be protected from indoctrination...

Not sure why you keep talking about "requirements". You are missing the point. Protection from indoctrination is a different subject.

[Digga]

TTwiggy said:

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

That's because you are looking at the issue back to front. The criminal mind just needs an opportunity.

[Alpinestars]

TTwiggy said:

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

Nail, head, on.

Integration I get.

Crime, rickets and most other excuses are bks.

[Alpinestars]

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

That's because you are looking at the issue back to front. The criminal mind just needs an opportunity.

That wouldn't be a difficult proposition to prove. Maybe list the armed robberies committed by Burka clad individuals, compared to other forms of going incognito whilst committing armed robberies.

[TTwiggy]

Alpinestars said:

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

That's because you are looking at the issue back to front. The criminal mind just needs an opportunity.

That wouldn't be a difficult proposition to prove. Maybe list the armed robberies committed by Burka clad individuals, compared to other forms of going incognito whilst committing armed robberies.

Or the usual MO: walk into a shop with a hood pulled up half-arsedly over your head, pull out a knife and try to make off with the till.

[Alpinestars]

TTwiggy said:

Alpinestars said:

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Has there been a spate of Burqa-facilliated armed robberies then? Seems a bit of a non-problem to me.

That's because you are looking at the issue back to front. The criminal mind just needs an opportunity.

That wouldn't be a difficult proposition to prove. Maybe list the armed robberies committed by Burka clad individuals, compared to other forms of going incognito whilst committing armed robberies.

Or the usual MO: walk into a shop with a hood pulled up half-arsedly over your head, pull out a knife and try to make off with the till.

At least the shopkeeper knows that anyone with a hood is going to pull a knife, so he can be prepared.

[WinstonWolf]

Roman Rhodes said:

WinstonWolf said:

Roman Rhodes said:

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.

A small cross isn't the same as hiding your face. The only religious requirement is to dress modestly, that's easy to do without disadvantaging yourself.

Hiding your face is choosing not to integrate, the wearers need to be protected from indoctrination...

Not sure why you keep talking about "requirements". You are missing the point. Protection from indoctrination is a different subject.

No, you're missing the point. Indoctrination is a key part of why people are choosing to wear something that will disadvantage them. There is no need to hide your face in religion, it's simply a personal choice. If it was a requirement there *may* be a reason for an exemption but there isn't.

Funny how ISIS have now banned them