Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:Later this month France will impose a ban on wearing the Burqa- the full Islamic face veil, in public. It's causing a lot of arguments for obvious reasons. What do you think?

patsfan12 wrote:It should be banned maybe if they didn't wear it i might not dislike them as much.......doubtful though

patsfan12 wrote:It should be banned maybe if they didn't wear it i might not dislike them as much.......doubtful though

radiojake wrote:The French (and soon to be Dutch) banning of the Burqa is an ethnocentric, imperialist 21st century version of 'White-men-saving-brown-women-from-brown-men' - The reason why the 'West' has such a problem with a full-veiled burqa is the fact that the woman's body is covered, and in a western, capitalist society, women are only valued by the body that they display - Apparently 'freedom' is the ability to wear as little as possible -

- Women's liberation equates to girls freezing their asses off at 2am in the Bourke Street mall on a july night (winter) wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and short top - That is freedom - Covering yourself to hide your body is patriarchy personified (somehow ignoring the irony of the previous example)

I am drunk so if you do not understand me I apologize - But the banning of the burqa is western imperialism personified and the commodification of female bodies - Ironically the banning is in the name of women's liberation - even though the 'West' is still yet to achieve this goal -

Abeedah don't look sad, smile like your sister Zaheen!

patsfan12 wrote:It should be banned maybe if they didn't wear it i might not dislike them as much.......doubtful though

Baron Von PWN wrote:Such a ban is ludicrous restriction of their freedoms. Requiring them to show their face for identification is acceptable. If they are indeed being forced to wear a Niqab or a Burka there are sufficient state authorities in both countries to step in and protect them from abuse, a ban is completely unnecessary and the bassets form of populism.

Also a nit-pic. That is a Niqab

This is a burqa

patsfan12 wrote:It should be banned maybe if they didn't wear it i might not dislike them as much.......doubtful though

bedub1 wrote:If you require them to remove them for "identification purposes" such as law enforcement, what about entering a store? You can't go into a 711 with a skimask on....they want to have you on video tape in case you rob the place.

bedub1 wrote:How about in Las Vegas....where they look for cheaters. You can't hide behind a full body covering such as that.

notyou2 wrote:I believe they are preparing to do the same thing in Quebec but I could be wrong.

notyou2 wrote:I believe they are preparing to do the same thing in Quebec but I could be wrong.

saxitoxin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I believe they are preparing to do the same thing in Quebec but I could be wrong.

I doubt it not at all. They already banned Sikhs from wearing the kirpan on the specious "public safety" argument. Montreal has become as notorious as Sun City, South Africa.

Telling people they can't wear something is no different than telling people they have to wear something (e.g. the Dutch requiring Jews to wear yellow stars or El Capitan Beach here in Santa Barbara requiring ol' Saxi wear a bathing suit even if it means tan lines).

saxitoxin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I believe they are preparing to do the same thing in Quebec but I could be wrong.

I doubt it not at all. They already banned Sikhs from wearing the kirpan on the specious "public safety" argument. Montreal has become as notorious as Sun City, South Africa.

Telling people they can't wear something is no different than telling people they have to wear something (e.g. the Dutch requiring Jews to wear yellow stars or El Capitan Beach here in Santa Barbara requiring ol' Saxi wear a bathing suit even if it means tan lines).

bedub1 wrote:Lets equate this to something that actually makes sense...how about somebody that goes around wearing a ski-mask all the time?

[

Johnny Rockets wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Lets equate this to something that actually makes sense...how about somebody that goes around wearing a ski-mask all the time?

[

Try Again, foo.

I don't know of any culture, or religion, where it's an ingrained belief to wear a balaclava.
Or, of any place that you risk getting buried waist deep in sand and stoned to death because you chose not to wear it in public.

This is not about a fashion statement. This is about a non threatening choice to dress as one sees fit in the way the culture that they were raised in. No one should be forced to wear it, but no one should be prohibited from choosing to do so.


Equate it to something that is remotly relevant.


JRock

jrock wrote:No one should be forced to wear it

jrock wrote:stoned to death because you chose not to wear it

http://www.rferl.org/content/nato_repels_attck_on_kabul_base/3544595.html wrote:Suicide bombers wearing burqas have attacked a NATO base on the outskirts of Kabul, lightly wounding three soldiers.

Symmetry wrote:I see that argument, but it would also essentially ban a person from a lot of public places purely based on how they profess their faith.