Face covering

DtheP47 said:
People should in principle have the right to wear whatever they want and to express their religious beliefs. We live in an age of rights and freedoms enshrined in law. As long as it's a genuine expression of belief and not something imposed by social or familial pressures.
Click to expand...
Sorry Dave that's an utter load of crap and I think you know it, like others have said you can't go into a bank post office in the dock in court wearing a crash helmet , so why should we bow to people wearing full face veils when they attend these places
 
DtheP47 said:
I've just spent a bit of time today in London and have seen many a Japanese tourist wearing their anti-flu masks, they are tolerated and welcomed in all the major stores to shop till they drop as of course are ladies with burquas and such like.
"Funny Old World eh?"
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a funny old World, women being stoned to death because they were raped.

Obviously they must have been putting themselves out there, it couldn't be the blokes fault. He wouldn't have done it if she hadn't worked him up to such a frenzy, (I'll use that excuse if ever I'm put before a Judge, he will surely be senile enough to believe me).
 
jaysay said:
Sorry Dave that's an utter load of crap and I think you know it, like others have said you can't go into a bank post office in the dock in court wearing a crash helmet , so why should we bow to people wearing full face veils when they attend these places
Click to expand...

John, the recent rumblings and rantings about wearing the veil in the court when giving evidence provides a clear example of the need to balance competing considerations and find a suitable compromise. The same applies in the school context where individual needs must be balanced against other important factors such as the school community, the ethos of the school and the impact on the wider community. This is not a case where one-size-fits-all will produce the right response.
In a free society, the state must allow citizens to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and to resolve any problems that arise through negotiation and informal give and take, rather than legislating on the minutiae of everyday life in my book.
 
DtheP47 said:
John, the recent rumblings and rantings about wearing the veil in the court when giving evidence provides a clear example of the need to balance competing considerations and find a suitable compromise. The same applies in the school context where individual needs must be balanced against other important factors such as the school community, the ethos of the school and the impact on the wider community. This is not a case where one-size-fits-all will produce the right response.
In a free society, the state must allow citizens to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and to resolve any problems that arise through negotiation and informal give and take, rather than legislating on the minutiae of everyday life in my book.
Click to expand...
The mind really does boggle Dave, so your saying that we should allow a woman to stand in the dock with no visual proof that it is actually the person accused of the crime. In your world Dave we shouldn't have rules and regulations and we have to make exceptions for people due to their religious believes, which actually are nothing to do with religion, in the first place. Just wonder what kind of response I'd get if I walked around Islamabad openly eating a bacon butty, I shudder at the thought;)
 
jaysay said:
The mind really does boggle Dave, so your saying that we should allow a woman to stand in the dock with no visual proof that it is actually the person accused of the crime. In your world Dave we shouldn't have rules and regulations and we have to make exceptions for people due to their religious believes, which actually are nothing to do with religion, in the first place. Just wonder what kind of response I'd get if I walked around Islamabad openly eating a bacon butty, I shudder at the thought;)
Click to expand...

No John this defendant is in a case of witness intimidation (which sounds pretty serious to me), common sense dictates no she should not be allowed to keep her headdress on.
But everything I've said before stands.
 
DtheP47 said:
In a free society, the state must allow citizens to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others, and to resolve any problems that arise through negotiation and informal give and take, rather than legislating on the minutiae of everyday life in my book.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that "legislating on the minituae of everyday life" is something that has just got to go. But .... a free society is not a simple mechanism; it is a process rather than a thing. Britain's society is what it is because of struggle. Not only the horrendously bloody struggles to defend it in the 20th. c., but the centuries of struggle before that, and the decades of struggle since. And there are not only the formal written laws to consider. There are values which also sum up what it is to be British, (or Quebecois, for that matter). And the face covering stunt is an affront to these values. It symbolizes the kind of Islamist state which is anything but free, and should be accepted and tolerated as much as swastikas, jack boots, jew baiting, and lynching blacks.

It's just a few weeks over a century since Emily Wilding Davison made her brave statement in support of votes for women. Aparently, some haven't gotten the message yet.

The last thing Islamists ... as distinct from Muslims ... want is a free state. They want one as much as Walmart wants free enterprise. Face covering is a symbol of the Islamist state.
 
jaysay said:
The mind really does boggle Dave, so your saying that we should allow a woman to stand in the dock with no visual proof that it is actually the person accused of the crime. In your world Dave we shouldn't have rules and regulations and we have to make exceptions for people due to their religious believes, which actually are nothing to do with religion, in the first place. Just wonder what kind of response I'd get if I walked around Islamabad openly eating a bacon butty, I shudder at the thought;)
Click to expand...

a jury needs to see the face of teh person in the dock so it can help tell if the person is lying or not

not all lies can be determined by someones expression but under a burka the sod could be grinning from ear to ear while telling a lie

covering a persons face when giving evidence or answering to a crime or accusation takes away a big part of spotting a liar or a person telling a truth
 
Last edited:
Eric said:
I have to agree that "legislating on the minituae of everyday life" is something that has just got to go. But ........etc etc a free society is not a simple mechanism; it is a process rather than a thing.The last thing Islamists ... as distinct from Muslims ... want is a free state. They want one as much as Walmart wants free enterprise. Face covering is a symbol of the Islamist state.
Click to expand...

As I posted before Eric,
The vast majority of the 1.4 million Muslim women in Britain do not even wear the face veil, as it is not considered a religious obligation. The tiny minority that do are probably happy to remove the veil when required.

One has to question though if their stance is really about religious freedom, or about making a political statement? The veilists that is.
This debate has now become so polarised that people who didn't care what Muslim women wore are now turning against the veil using myths and misinformation to bolster the argument.
 
DtheP47 said:
It isn't just "foreign" women that are choosing to wear the burqua Eric, British-born Muslims are also making this choice.
Click to expand...

these muslim women that decide to wear the veil may well have been born here but have been brought up in a backward faith in islamic schools and been conditioned from a very young age .Its pretty much common knowledge that after attending normal everyday school many muslim children also attend islamic schools at night which as far as i can recall are not regulated and can be quite strict to the point of punishment beatings of children who ask awkward questions in some cases.

some may be lovely places and promote peace and free will but they didnt make panaroama the ones knocking ten bells out of kids did though
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My concern with the people who dress in this type of clothing. Burqa and Niqab. How do you know if its a woman or a man. When you see one of these going into a ladies toilet down the town, how do you know it's not a bloke . Your daughter or granddaughter may be in there. The person may have a bomb strapped to their body or may have a gun or some other offensive weapon. If a man or woman was acting suspiciously , they would be pulled by the police and searched. Do you think the police would be allowed to pull one of these. No because it would infringe their human rights to search someone dressed in that attire.
 
Mog said:
My concern with the people who dress in this type of clothing. Burqa and Niqab. How do you know if its a woman or a man. When you see one of these going into a ladies toilet down the town, how do you know it's not a bloke . Your daughter or granddaughter may be in there. The person may have a bomb strapped to their body or may have a gun or some other offensive weapon. If a man or woman was acting suspiciously , they would be pulled by the police and searched. Do you think the police would be allowed to pull one of these. No because it would infringe their human rights to search someone dressed in that attire.
Click to expand...

Little Englander mentality and paranoia from you here Mog. The London tube and bus bombs were detonated in rucsacs but we don’t ban or indeed stop and search people carrying them too much.
The Madrid bombers again used rucsacs, 13 in all and yes granted if you are boarding a RENEFE high speed train your luggage is scanned, not so here more's the pity. Those who invented the new kind of rucsac bomb used in the attacks are said to have been taught in training camps in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, under instruction from members of Morocco's radical Islamist Combat Group.
Incidentally the investigation into how they obtained their estimated 200 kg of explosives. The investigation revealed that they had been bought from a retired miner who still had access to blasting equipment.*
I am far more uneasy when using a cash machine and there are people of an errr’ Eastern European appearance in the vicinity than any person in a burqua or the like. But there you go I have fallen into the stereotype trap.
* Should we round up all retired miners and send them off to Guantanamo?
 
Little Englander naivety from you "D" are yeh saying nobody wearing a Burqua or Niqab was ever armed in anyway?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
cashman said:
Little Englander naivety from you "D" are yeh saying nobody wearing a Burqua or Niqab was ever armed in anyway?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cashy, did he miss the point about knowing if they were male or female entering ladies loo,s whilst your children could be in there or the part about searching or strip searching them and their human rights. Did I have to get all that other boring stuff back D.
 
I have no issue with religious freedom, I am very glad we live in a society where you are free to practice your faith, sexual gender, thought and have freedom of speech.

But is the wearing of a Veil of any kind mentioned in the Koran?
Why not allow Forced Marriage? Polygamy?, Female Circumcision?, all of which have been done in the name of religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top