British Comedy Guide

Ban the Burka? Page 16

Quote: sootyj @ May 1 2010, 9:37 PM BST

Hurrah and about bloody time. The idea wearing that ridiculous outfit is not a result of massive communal bullying and encouraging women to see them selves as inferior.

The law is there in part at least to protect people from their own stupidity or innability to make good choices. Banning the burka is right up their with making meths undrinkable or banning child porn as an example of a government saying firmly "you do not have the sense to make sensible decisions we will make them for you."

This shouldn't happen often, but some times it is neccasary.

No offence but that is bollocks. Making meths undrinkable is about alcohol being far too useful to society as a solvent to stop its use but not allowing people to enjoy the effects of drinking it without paying tax. Banning child porn is about protecting the children, not about protecting paedophiles from themselves. Government should not protect you from yourself, it should only protect others from you, which includes protecting the minority from the majority where necessary.

Yes the burkha arises from oppression of females but I also know a couple of Muslim women who would still rather wear the headscarf, long sleeves & skirts etc. as a modesty thing which stops blokes leering at them the whole time. They actually see the Western media pressure on women to wear mini skirts etc. as oppression of women by men as well - an attitude you can't really deny also exists in non-muslims if you noticed all the fuss about size zero models and anorexic 7 year olds.

Banning the veil isn't going to stop the attitudes - just hide them from public view. All it will do is make you feel less uncomfortable by not having it in sight.

The security argument is bollocks as well. I don't really see how a ban on the burkha would have stopped the 9/11 lot. Why shouldn't people be able to hide their faces if they want? What else do you want to ban? Sunglasses, beards and makeup? Hats and scarves as well? Fake tan and wedding veils?

If you're that worried about stopping anyone having any privacy then just put a chip in everyone or a barcode on their forehead. Why not go the whole way and install cameras in every room in their houses just so you can make sure nobody gets any privacy and can't possibly ever get up to anything that you don't personally approve of?

Oh, and if you can't manage to communicate with someone just because you can't see every single little facial expression then there's probably something wrong with you. I work for a pharmaceutical company and, in the clean roooms, there are people who I pretty much only ever deal with when they are wearing a shapeless green suit, head cover, face-mask and safety glasses so that all you can actually see of each other are vague body shape and eyes behind the glasses - arguably less than you see of some people wearing veils - and yet we still manage to recognise each other and have perfectly normal conversations. How many of you complaining about not being able to see facial expressions would actually talk to any muslim women if they weren't wearing the veil? There's plenty about who don't wear it, so how many do you know?

Or we could all just grow up and worry about the attitudes that lead to these things instead of trying to ban the irrelevant symptoms and delude ourselves that it has done anything to stop the problem.

I feel inspired to wear a burka next time I'm in Belgium. Unfortunately I am too tall and broad-shouldered to look really good in drag.

I think we're all so hung-up about what we can and can't see people wear in public, that we should have a national nudity day.

I'll stay in.

I don't think it's been pointed out yet, but this Belgian law levies fines against the women who wear these things.

They've criminalised the "victims", which doesn't appear to be consistent with the argument that this is anti-oppression law.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 4 2010, 11:30 AM BST

I don't think it's been pointed out yet, but this Belgian law levies fines against the women who wear these things.

They've criminalised the "victims", which doesn't appear to be consistent with the argument that this is anti-oppression law.

I wonder what JCVD's position is?
He's the cloest thing Belgium have to a deep thinker.

Quote: Afinkawan @ May 4 2010, 10:09 AM BST

Government should not protect you from yourself, it should only protect others from you, which includes protecting the minority from the majority where necessary.

Ok then crash helmets, limited access to dnagerous/addictive medications, guardianship for under 16s.

Or do you smile at homeless drug addicts and think "hmm keep going with that free chocie."

Quote: Afinkawan @ May 4 2010, 10:09 AM BST

Yes the burkha arises from oppression of females but I also know a couple of Muslim women who would still rather wear the headscarf, long sleeves & skirts etc. as a modesty thing which stops blokes leering at them the whole time.

Yes I know similar women (do we know the same women?) some of whom are Plymouth Brtheren and some religious Jews (and a couple of nuns I know alot of women who don't put out don't I).

But there is a quantifiable diference between modest dress and complete exclusion from society. How about if I say I'm pro Niquarb?

The veil it's self is the tip of the iceberg which is Izzit. The concept that a woman is the helpless subject of her families honour. In which her male relatives choose for her, inherit on her behalf, it's insidious and hugely destructive.

It's not even that popular a view point in the Muslim world. And one not shared by many other faiths. To wear the veil is to symbolise so much more than not showing your face.

Quote: sootyj @ May 4 2010, 1:58 PM BST

Ok then crash helmets, limited access to dnagerous/addictive medications, guardianship for under 16s.

Or do you smile at homeless drug addicts and think "hmm keep going with that free chocie."

Yes I know similar women (do we know the same women?) some of whom are Plymouth Brtheren and some religious Jews (and a couple of nuns I know alot of women who don't put out don't I).

But there is a quantifiable diference between modest dress and complete exclusion from society. How about if I say I'm pro Niquarb?

The veil it's self is the tip of the iceberg which is Izzit. The concept that a woman is the helpless subject of her families honour. In which her male relatives choose for her, inherit on her behalf, it's insidious and hugely destructive.

It's not even that popular a view point in the Muslim world. And one not shared by many other faiths. To wear the veil is to symbolise so much more than not showing your face.

To summarise you are saying - it's beyond the veil,

Quote: Afinkawan @ May 4 2010, 10:09 AM BST

What else do you want to ban? Beards, makeup, and fake tan?

Frankly, yes.

Quote: zooo @ May 4 2010, 11:25 AM BST

I'll stay in.

Smarmy

Quote: Marc P @ May 4 2010, 2:00 PM BST

To summarise you are saying - it's beyond the veil,

Just that people need to be on their garb

Quote: sootyj @ May 4 2010, 2:31 PM BST

Just that people need to be on their garb

But not so cloak and dagger about it all.

You offer me a hoods up but your just masking your words

You offer me a hoods up but your just masking your words

Imagine that - the (failed) Times Square bomber is a Muslim and not a white "teabagger" as so many had hoped. The South Park connection seems more likely now.

New York (CNN) -- Authorities hunting for the suspect in the botched Times Square bombing dramatically beat the clock overnight, seizing a Pakistani-American citizen moments before he began a long trip to his strife-torn homeland.

Faisal Shahzad, 30, was arrested around 11:45 p.m. ET Monday at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, said Attorney General Eric Holder.

Shahzad will appear Tuesday in a Manhattan federal courtroom to face formal charges in the case.

Latest updates in Times Square bomb scare

Shahzad was on board Emirates Airlines Flight 202 to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the jetway had been pulled back when the plane was called to return to the gate, a law enforcement source said. Shahzad was booked through to Islamabad, Pakistan, via Dubai, a senior airline official confirmed.

"They just caught him at the last second," a law enforcement source said.

Teabagger?

Quote: DaButt @ May 4 2010, 2:50 PM BST

Imagine that - the (failed) Times Square bomber is a Muslim and not a white "teabagger"

Technically a teabagger is a man who dips his testicles into another man's mouth, so unless you know something we don't he could still be a TBer.

Share this page