Moderator: Community Team
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
Dancing Mustard wrote:If a law was created explicitly outlawing Burkas then there'd be nothing the HRA1998 could do about it. A declaration of incompatibility could be made, but the law would still be 100% binding...
(Not saying I agree, just keeping things legally accurate in here)
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Skittles! wrote::/ Isn't the burka just like what Catholic women had to wear during mass about 30 years ago?
Yeah, don't go on about one religion when another religion did it WAY before that religion came about.
MeDeFe wrote:Banning it? That would be no different from banning t-shirts, or from the law favouring boxers over briefs or vice versa. As long a the woman herself chooses to wear it it's fine, if she's being told to do so by her husband or whoever it's an other matter.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Well then you were wrong...Napoleon Ier wrote:I thought the whole point of your common law system was that any idiot judge could decide whether or not to uphold the Human Rights Act or the law on burqas.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
greenoaks wrote:burkas should be banned. no islamic woman should be allowed to wear one in public.
except of course fat woman. a law should be passed forcing them to cover up, regardless of their religion.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Well then you were wrong...Napoleon Ier wrote:I thought the whole point of your common law system was that any idiot judge could decide whether or not to uphold the Human Rights Act or the law on burqas.
You impression is wrong. 'As far as you know' appears to be not particularily far at all.Napoleon Ier wrote:I was under the impression, Mustard, that if any such conflict arose, a judge could make the law. This being, as far as I know, the basis upon which British common law functions: judges make the law.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Dancing Mustard wrote:You impression is wrong. 'As far as you know' appears to be not particularily far at all.Napoleon Ier wrote:I was under the impression, Mustard, that if any such conflict arose, a judge could make the law. This being, as far as I know, the basis upon which British common law functions: judges make the law.
Sory Nap, but you're just batting at a losing wicket with that particular 'theory' of law. For simplicity's sake I'd stick with the usual explanation given to laypersons of 'judges just interpret law'. It'll keep this thread on topic for all concerned, and it'll save us a great deal of time.
When you're old enough to get enroled on a law degree, then we'll chat about this (fairly interesting field of jurisprudence) further; but for the while: no that is not how English Law functions, judges do not (by any logical conception) make law.
Good day to you.
MeDeFe wrote:I say it's ok for them to wear it if they like, if you'd pay attention I'm also saying that it's not ok to force anyone to wear one, but it's also not ok to force someone to wear jeans, sneakers and a t-shirt who wants to wear a suit.
d.gishman wrote:MeDeFe wrote:I say it's ok for them to wear it if they like, if you'd pay attention I'm also saying that it's not ok to force anyone to wear one, but it's also not ok to force someone to wear jeans, sneakers and a t-shirt who wants to wear a suit.
but jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt doesn't cover someone's whole face, concealing their identity to everyone. the purpose of the burka was so that the husbands could prevent other men from looking at his wife's body and face, but in a modern society where women have to interact with other people, the burka is prohibitive.
Frigidus wrote:By modern do you mean Western and by have do you mean want? As I said earlier the burka is no more obstructive to society than a scarf. Should we ban ski masks too? If the women want to wear a burka they can and if they don't then don't. If their husband wants them to they can make their own choice.
d.gishman wrote:Frigidus wrote:By modern do you mean Western and by have do you mean want? As I said earlier the burka is no more obstructive to society than a scarf. Should we ban ski masks too? If the women want to wear a burka they can and if they don't then don't. If their husband wants them to they can make their own choice.
Can you take a passport picture with a ski mask?
hiitsmestevie1 wrote:it shouldn't be banned.. but i think comic had the best idea.. that it be removed for security purposes (if need be in front of women)
if they WANT to or even are being "forced" to .. thats their choice. (they chose to be wife#?
d.gishman wrote:Frigidus wrote:By modern do you mean Western and by have do you mean want? As I said earlier the burka is no more obstructive to society than a scarf. Should we ban ski masks too? If the women want to wear a burka they can and if they don't then don't. If their husband wants them to they can make their own choice.
Can you take a passport picture with a ski mask?
HungrySomali wrote:An Islamic lady down here in Florida was suing the DMV because they wouldnt let her take her drivers license photo without her ninja mask on. If its okay for them to wear that scary shit then its okay for me to stay at least 100 meters from where they are at all times.
comic boy wrote:HungrySomali wrote:An Islamic lady down here in Florida was suing the DMV because they wouldnt let her take her drivers license photo without her ninja mask on. If its okay for them to wear that scary shit then its okay for me to stay at least 100 meters from where they are at all times.
Thats where I draw the line with religious tolerance, everybody is entitled
to their personal faith but nobody should expect it to overide the laws of the land. It happens all the time though, why should people expect others not to have a drink on a Sunday simply because it is a religious day to them ?
comic boy wrote:HungrySomali wrote:An Islamic lady down here in Florida was suing the DMV because they wouldnt let her take her drivers license photo without her ninja mask on. If its okay for them to wear that scary shit then its okay for me to stay at least 100 meters from where they are at all times.
Thats where I draw the line with religious tolerance, everybody is entitled
to their personal faith but nobody should expect it to overide the laws of the land. It happens all the time though, why should people expect others not to have a drink on a Sunday simply because it is a religious day to them ?
Napoleon Ier wrote:comic boy wrote:HungrySomali wrote:An Islamic lady down here in Florida was suing the DMV because they wouldnt let her take her drivers license photo without her ninja mask on. If its okay for them to wear that scary shit then its okay for me to stay at least 100 meters from where they are at all times.
Thats where I draw the line with religious tolerance, everybody is entitled
to their personal faith but nobody should expect it to overide the laws of the land. It happens all the time though, why should people expect others not to have a drink on a Sunday simply because it is a religious day to them ?
Because it's the law of the land, dipshit.
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl