Banning the Burqa

[Woodruff]

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

I'd got with "Hottie" or "Ninja"...one or the other. <smile>

[Pirlo]

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

I'd got with "Hottie" or "Ninja"...one or the other. <smile>

it's an offensive joke

teenagers here call burqa wearers "ninja" to mock the costume and girl

[Woodruff]

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

I'd got with "Hottie" or "Ninja"...one or the other. <smile>

it's an offensive joke
teenagers here call burqa wearers "ninja" to mock the costume and girl

Huh...I probably should have considered that, but I've never heard that particular term used for it...though I can see the obvious relation. See, I don't think the burqa looks Ninja-ish. But that picture...that DID look Ninja-ish to me. And she looked like a hottie too.

[Pirlo]

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

I'd got with "Hottie" or "Ninja"...one or the other. <smile>

it's an offensive joke
teenagers here call burqa wearers "ninja" to mock the costume and girl

Huh...I probably should have considered that, but I've never heard that particular term used for it...though I can see the obvious relation. See, I don't think the burqa looks Ninja-ish. But that picture...that DID look Ninja-ish to me. And she looked like a hottie too.

yeah I agree. but I think it does look like a ninja.

[BigBallinStalin]

not sure what they call this one >>>> http://images.alwatanvoice.com/news/lar ... 503956.jpg

I'd got with "Hottie" or "Ninja"...one or the other. <smile>

it's an offensive joke
teenagers here call burqa wearers "ninja" to mock the costume and girl

Huh...I probably should have considered that, but I've never heard that particular term used for it...though I can see the obvious relation. See, I don't think the burqa looks Ninja-ish. But that picture...that DID look Ninja-ish to me. And she looked like a hottie too.

yeah I agree. but I think it does look like a ninja.

I would date her as Scorpion. I'd yell, GET OVER HERE!, and throw that grappling hook into her, pull her close, and then rip her spine out.

[FATALITY]

And I'd leave her with the bill.

[Pirlo]

her eyes are amazing they tell how the rest of the body would be

[Symmetry]

The problem is that while it is not required by the K'ran, etc., many adherants consider it to be part of their religion.

It would sort of be like telling an Amish person they could not wear their "plain" clothes. You won't find that requirement in the Bible, but it is still part of their religion.

I'm not sure Pirlo would agree (based on Pirlo's initial response to my post).

I agreed with your (I think it was you, not woodruff) initial answer.. that it should be allowed unless there are security considerations.

My point is just that religion is largely defined by the adherants, not outsiders. So, it doesn't really matter much if experts say it is not required for the religion. If people feel it is part of their religion, then it becomes a part.

And I'm saying that Pirlo does not think the burqa is part of the Muslim religion. Someone mentioned the Amish, which is a good example (although I think they would argue that not using electricity is part of their religion). Conservatives have tried to argue the opposite - that the posting of the Ten Commandments at court houses is not religion, but is instead tradition, but have failed. I don't mean the next example to denigrate wearing burqas, but is it a tradition to wear green on Saint Patrick's Day or is it a religious thing? I'm sure there are better examples, but I did not get much sleep last night.

I agree that the burqa is not part of the religion, (according to many Islamic scholars). However, as with the Amish, you get into the question of who gets to decide. That is why I brought them up. Even the Amish will acknowledge that the Bible does not specifically say they need to wear straw hats and pants without zippers. They do feel it is part of their religion (interestingly, the Amish actually do not follow some of the old Testament rules that do exist, regarding tassles and so forth). Similarly, many Muslim women do feel it is part of their religion, either through ignorance of just strong traditional belief, and will strongly object to being forced to wear other clothing.

As to what is true and not... it comes down to attorneys to decide. Basically, people are free to do as they wish unless they are causing harm to others. Right now, not submitting to full security screenings is considered potentially causing harm.

I agree with most of this, but I'm a bit unclear about the last sentence.

Not submitting to full security screenings could only be considered potentially causing harm if they were then allowed to go on to do the whatever activity the screening was designed to protect. I don't really see this as a reason to ban the burqa, or not ban it. It seems a bit irrelevant.

For example, if I wanted to board a plane, but refused to go through a body scanner or submit to a pat-down, it would be right for me to be turned away. My actions would not be against the law, nor should they be. I just wouldn't be allowed on the plane.

Wearing the burqa should really have the same standards applied.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with most of this, but I'm a bit unclear about the last sentence.

Not submitting to full security screenings could only be considered potentially causing harm if they were then allowed to go on to do the whatever activity the screening was designed to protect. I don't really see this as a reason to ban the burqa, or not ban it. It seems a bit irrelevant.

For example, if I wanted to board a plane, but refused to go through a body scanner or submit to a pat-down, it would be right for me to be turned away. My actions would not be against the law, nor should they be. I just wouldn't be allowed on the plane.

No, you are wrong. Generally if you refuse, you are considered guilty. Else, anyone could just make multiple tries until they were not "randomly selected".

Right now, the choice you have is to not fly... or to agree to submit to any search they feel is warranted. Or, in some cases, you might be on a "no fly list" and not even have an option to choose.. you just won't be able to fly.

Whether that is warranted/good is another question entirely. I am just saying "what is".

Wearing the burqa should really have the same standards applied.

Yes. If there is a legitimate security need for searches, to see someone's face (as for a driver's license, etc.), then the same rules should apply for a burqa.

[PLAYER57832]

PS
It seems that quite a few posters are mistakenly thinking a Burqa is a hajib.

A burqa is the one that Afghan women wear, where not even the eyes are visible. it is often blue, not black.
A niqab is the one where only the eyes are seen.
A hijab is the one that covers all but the face.

link:
http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/ ... burqa_etc/


OOPS,. I see Baron already pointed this out a few pages back.

[Pirlo]

PS
It seems that quite a few posters are mistakenly thinking a Burqa is a hajib.

A burqa is the one that Afghan women wear, where not even the eyes are visible. it is often blue, not black.
A niqab is the one where only the eyes are seen.
A hijab is the one that covers all but the face.

link:
http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/ ... burqa_etc/


OOPS,. I see Baron already pointed this out a few pages back.

just to help ya understand the exact difference, the very original Burqa is shown below.

Burqa is a piece of soft plastic on which fabric is used to design the costume. so it acts like a structure on which the face covering costume is built. it should leave the eyes uncovered, and this is the function of Burqa (the piece of plastic).
see this http://realmofdreams.com/ebay/burqa2.jpg

Niqab doesn't include the plastic piece (aka Burqa) and it leaves the eyes uncovered. guys call it Ninja here.
Khimar doesn't include plastic piece (aka Burqa) and it covers the whole face including eyes.
Hijab is exactly as you defined it (leaves the whole face uncovered).

the Afghan model is just a different fashion in terms of design. I'm not sure what they call it. (Afghanistan doesn't equal middle east. its region is different 'mid-Asia'. and its language is different as well).

[Symmetry]

I agree with most of this, but I'm a bit unclear about the last sentence.

Not submitting to full security screenings could only be considered potentially causing harm if they were then allowed to go on to do the whatever activity the screening was designed to protect. I don't really see this as a reason to ban the burqa, or not ban it. It seems a bit irrelevant.

For example, if I wanted to board a plane, but refused to go through a body scanner or submit to a pat-down, it would be right for me to be turned away. My actions would not be against the law, nor should they be. I just wouldn't be allowed on the plane.

No, you are wrong. Generally if you refuse, you are considered guilty. Else, anyone could just make multiple tries until they were not "randomly selected".

Right now, the choice you have is to not fly... or to agree to submit to any search they feel is warranted. Or, in some cases, you might be on a "no fly list" and not even have an option to choose.. you just won't be able to fly.

Whether that is warranted/good is another question entirely. I am just saying "what is".

Wearing the burqa should really have the same standards applied.

Yes. If there is a legitimate security need for searches, to see someone's face (as for a driver's license, etc.), then the same rules should apply for a burqa.

This is really confused. First, you've confused ID confirmation with a search. Second, you've confused refusing a search with illegality.

The second part of your post completely agrees with mine and is still no reason to ban the burqa.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with most of this, but I'm a bit unclear about the last sentence.

Not submitting to full security screenings could only be considered potentially causing harm if they were then allowed to go on to do the whatever activity the screening was designed to protect. I don't really see this as a reason to ban the burqa, or not ban it. It seems a bit irrelevant.

For example, if I wanted to board a plane, but refused to go through a body scanner or submit to a pat-down, it would be right for me to be turned away. My actions would not be against the law, nor should they be. I just wouldn't be allowed on the plane.

No, you are wrong. Generally if you refuse, you are considered guilty. Else, anyone could just make multiple tries until they were not "randomly selected".

Right now, the choice you have is to not fly... or to agree to submit to any search they feel is warranted. Or, in some cases, you might be on a "no fly list" and not even have an option to choose.. you just won't be able to fly.

Whether that is warranted/good is another question entirely. I am just saying "what is".

Wearing the burqa should really have the same standards applied.

Yes. If there is a legitimate security need for searches, to see someone's face (as for a driver's license, etc.), then the same rules should apply for a burqa.

This is really confused. First, you've confused ID confirmation with a search. Second, you've confused refusing a search with illegality.

No. On the first count, anyone who's ID cannot be confirmed for a range of reasons is subjected to a search (still).
You are correct on the second part, but that is because the law /TSA policy has apparently been revised. Remember the "don't touch my junk" guy? He was threatened with a big fine and jail.

In truth, if they are going to do searches, that ought to be how it is done. Else, someone could just come back or try another airport.

[Symmetry]

I agree with most of this, but I'm a bit unclear about the last sentence.

Not submitting to full security screenings could only be considered potentially causing harm if they were then allowed to go on to do the whatever activity the screening was designed to protect. I don't really see this as a reason to ban the burqa, or not ban it. It seems a bit irrelevant.

For example, if I wanted to board a plane, but refused to go through a body scanner or submit to a pat-down, it would be right for me to be turned away. My actions would not be against the law, nor should they be. I just wouldn't be allowed on the plane.

No, you are wrong. Generally if you refuse, you are considered guilty. Else, anyone could just make multiple tries until they were not "randomly selected".

Right now, the choice you have is to not fly... or to agree to submit to any search they feel is warranted. Or, in some cases, you might be on a "no fly list" and not even have an option to choose.. you just won't be able to fly.

Whether that is warranted/good is another question entirely. I am just saying "what is".

Wearing the burqa should really have the same standards applied.

Yes. If there is a legitimate security need for searches, to see someone's face (as for a driver's license, etc.), then the same rules should apply for a burqa.

This is really confused. First, you've confused ID confirmation with a search. Second, you've confused refusing a search with illegality.

No. On the first count, anyone who's ID cannot be confirmed for a range of reasons is subjected to a search (still).
You are correct on the second part, but that is because the law /TSA policy has apparently been revised. Remember the "don't touch my junk" guy? He was threatened with a big fine and jail.

In truth, if they are going to do searches, that ought to be how it is done. Else, someone could just come back or try another airport.

Then perhaps I'm confused as to how this relates to whether the burqa (or niqab- whatever) should be banned or not. At present, if I understand correctly. Anyone wearing a veil will be asked to remove it to confirm identity before boarding a plane. Speaking for British airports, this can be done in private in the presence of female staff. Searches can likewise be done in private if required.

I think this is fine. It's not a huge pain, and satisfies any security requirements while respecting the right to wear a burqa. It's not really an argument for or against. I don't see the relevance to whether or not there should be a ban.

[bedub1]

I've seen lots of people wearing the Hijab and I think it's fine.

I still agree the Burqa should be banned from public places.

[Symmetry]

I've seen lots of people wearing the Hijab and I think it's fine.

I still agree the Burqa should be banned from public places.

You've said this before, but your arguments were mostly about security and you didn't really argue why, say moo-moos or motorcycle helmets should not be banned from public spaces for the same reasons.

Does it just come to a fundamental dislike that makes you want to have this banned?

[PLAYER57832]

[
Then perhaps I'm confused as to how this relates to whether the burqa (or niqab- whatever) should be banned or not.

It was a direct response to your statement. Your statement was still partially correct, but so was my response, as I noted above.

At present, if I understand correctly. Anyone wearing a veil will be asked to remove it to confirm identity before boarding a plane. Speaking for British airports, this can be done in private in the presence of female staff. Searches can likewise be done in private if required.

I think this is fine. It's not a huge pain, and satisfies any security requirements while respecting the right to wear a burqa. It's not really an argument for or against. I don't see the relevance to whether or not there should be a ban.

The TSA has gone through several changes because of complaints. At one point, refusing to be searched would have resulted in more than just being denied the chance to fly. Now, apparently they have backed off from that a bit.

However, some women still might object to these searches, even if conducted by women. At that point, I say the burden is on them to either conform or not fly.

[bedub1]

Apparently they didn't ban Burqa's...but veils. Does this mean wedding veils too?

[Stegura]

Apparently they didn't ban Burqa's...but veils. Does this mean wedding veils too?

heh, wouldn't that be a strange side effect.

[PLAYER57832]

Apparently they didn't ban Burqa's...but veils. Does this mean wedding veils too?

heh, wouldn't that be a strange side effect.

Since the ban is against wearing them in public and veils are generally not worn in public, it would not apply. Though I suppose if the wedding were held outdoors in a park? Also, veils are only covering the bride's face temporarily evne during the wedding ceremony.

[puddytat]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

[bedub1]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

If you can't ban people from wearing something, you can't ban them from wearing nothing.

[Pirlo]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

If you can't ban people from wearing something, you can't ban them from wearing nothing.

if you can ban people from killing, you can ban them from dying.

[Symmetry]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

If you can't ban people from wearing something, you can't ban them from wearing nothing.

Cute rhetoric. It's not a case of anything goes, or we all go nude, fun as that may be. I think you've misunderstood the grey area in between.

[Pirlo]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

If you can't ban people from wearing something, you can't ban them from wearing nothing.

Cute rhetoric. It's not a case of anything goes, or we all go nude, fun as that may be. I think you've misunderstood the grey area in between.

also, I'm not sure if bedub would be happy or find it proper to see nude sluts as he walks with his wife and 7 years old daughter in the streets.

[PLAYER57832]

people shouldn't be forced to adhere to restrictions about what they should wear.

If you can't ban people from wearing something, you can't ban them from wearing nothing.

Cute rhetoric. It's not a case of anything goes, or we all go nude, fun as that may be. I think you've misunderstood the grey area in between.

also, I'm not sure if bedub would be happy or find it proper to see nude sluts as he walks with his wife and 7 years old daughter in the streets.

You folks have obviously never heard of, had no real experience with nudist colonies.
After a short bit... its not at all seductive or even attractive. No more than seeing people with clothing.