Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arcvasti]

RE: Muslim Women wearing Burquas/whateverthey'recalled:

I have no problems with it, as long as its a free choice and not forced on them, like it is in some places in the Middle East[And elsewhere]. Quebec... As far as I can tell, the whole point of Quebec right now is to make it as inconvenient as possible for everyone who isn't Francophone and Catholic. Which, considering they were an oppressed minority not that long ago, is sort of ironic. Banning religious symbols =/= good. Although you might be able to make a case for religions that have their members carry knives/swords around with them or something like that.

And Smee, please don't double post. In the bottom right corner of a post you've already made, there's a "modify" button which allows you to edit your posts. Its generally considered more polite to add an addendum to your previous post rather then posting twice in a row unless its a succession game or something.

EDIT: Like this.

The sword Sikhs wield are a big part of their religion, and frankly, I seriously doubt any of them are going to go on a rampage (though I did see a killer sword fight arguing over how to commemorate a peace agreement between two sides. One guy lost his sword, grabbed another guy's sword and threw it at the enemy. No one died, and that wouldn't happen 99.99999% of the time. I think they even have a small dagger they can wear instead.)

Why does double posting one post bother people so much? Editing is a real pita.

Something to do with spamming threads. For people who look through their "Updated Topics" page frequently, like me, each post updates the topic and moves it to the top of the "Updated Topics" list. Double posting means that it gets updated much faster, which is annoying.

FAKEEDIT: You people post too fast.

:/

:|

:\

[UXLZ]

Something to do with spamming threads. For people who look through their "Updated Topics" page frequently, like me, each post updates the topic and moves it to the top of the "Updated Topics" list. Double posting means that it gets updated much faster, which is annoying.

FAKEEDIT: You people post too fast.

:/

:|

:\

I'm checking my updated topics constantly, and it really doesn't bother me. >_>

[Putnam]

There are surely very few Arab Sikhs in the world.

You underestimate the ignorance of the general population.

[Baffler]

That does raise an interesting question though. If they can carry a knife, why shouldn't I be able to carry a knife? Unless Sikhs are inherently more trustworthy, which I have strong doubts about. Not to mention that we're all equal under the law. Food for thought.

Under a ruling like that, you can carry a knife....welded into its scabbard.

This is true in NY but my own state of Ohio makes no such provision, and protects them just the same.

[Angle]

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.

[smeeprocket]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.

Unless you are black, then you'll get shot immediately. (and that really happened in an open carry state...)

[Angle]

Hat tip~

Yeah, that's a good point.

[Arcvasti]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.

[Virtz]

I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

Not in America, no, but in Russia, yeah. Bolshoi happened back in 2002, and Beslan did in 2004 (not that I'd advocate this as a reason for a ban since France isn't involved with Chechnya, to my knowledge).

[smeeprocket]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.

No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

You have to actually consider the needs of others with these types of laws, and I feel like these laws spend a lot of time caring about the white majority, and aren't really considering the other sides.

Plus, those laws allow harassment of minorities, arrest for things that shouldn't even be a crime, and just general oppression. We see this with people thinking it was just to kill treyvon martin because he looked suspicious by wearing a hoodie. Outlawing hoodies does not lower crime, it just reinforces bigotry and supports violence against minorities.

[UXLZ]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a niqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

Snrrrrrk. Dude, this is 'MURICA! you can carry a loaded assault rifle around if you want to.

Unless you are black, then you'll get shot immediately. (and that really happened in an open carry state...)

Mmm... I did realise that the locations list was too broad, so I said later in the post that it should only be for high-security areas, like banks.

Yes, it does, in a way, violate their religious beliefs. That's a shame and it saddens me. It still doesn't negate the logic.

I'll attempt to give an example here, sorry if it's bad.

In Australia, carrying guns around is, basically illegal. There are circumstances where you can, but let's not go into this.

Now, imagine there was a religion that had been around for thousands of years that mandated that its followers carry guns (obviously this is impossible, but it's for example's sake).
Should the followers of that religion be allowed to carry around guns despite the security risks, because their religion says so? Hell no! No god damn way in hell! Less extreme case, but that's why I'm saying that people shouldn't be able to wear face-covering attire in banks.
I know that Muslim women who wear burqas are people, and I also know that people do rob banks. Same deal as with the gun-religion. The guy who wants to carry around his gun isn't inherently untrustworthy because of his religion, but he's still a person, and people are flawed. I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to go into a bank wearing a ski-mask... Why should you be allowed to with a burqa? Because women wearing burqas are innately more trustworthy? Because they're women and thus should have special rules? Because it's a religious thing and is thus exempt from law? 
Honestly, this law should have always existed. (The one I'm proposing. Not the anti-burqa one in france.)
Anyway, as I was saying, I support their right to wear burqas in general... Just not in banks, or areas with a similar level of security and importance.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? At least, the one in France does, given my understanding, because it's specifically targeting these women. The one that I'm proposing? Yes, it does still target them, in the sense that they would be affected, but it doesn't target them in the sense that it's being proposed because of them.

Thank you for understanding that I'm not saying Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear burqas in banks because I think they're all terrorists. Also thank you for understanding that I'm not saying this to target them specifically. It's a shame that they're affected, but if there was a religion that said men had to wear handkerchiefs around their face I'd be saying the same thing.

[smeeprocket]

you really think there's going to be a rash of burqa wearing women robbing banks? Like that's a crime wave waiting to happen that justifies violating someone's religious liberty?

[UXLZ]

Okay, I'm usually against double-posting but in this case I feel like it's warranted. Hell, by the time I'm finished writing I highly doubt it will be a double post anyway. xD

No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

Honestly I'd be more afraid of a white person wearing a hoodie than a black person, but I digress. The issue isn't that we're afraid of 'the other', the issue is that of security risks. Also, I'd say the thing with hoodies is more shoplifting than murder. I also don't think hoodies should be outlawed since they aren't face-concealing. At least, the ones I know of aren't, 'Muricas might be different.

I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

Shirts and shoes don't prevent identification. Now, morph suits? that kind of argument would have more merit.
You're doing that thing, saying that 'I know X people who are good therefore it isn't a problem/concern.' It's not about your friends, it's about people who do use them this way.

By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

Should I go create a religion that allows its followers complete autonomy from the law? I mean, if they tried to stop us, that would be restricting our religious rights in favor of the majority's...

You have to actually consider the needs of others with these types of laws, and I feel like these laws spend a lot of time caring about the white majority, and aren't really considering the other sides.

I'll agree with this. Though I'd say we need laws caring less about the white majority and more about... Y'know, everyone. Someone robbing a bank hurts minorities as much as majorities.

Plus, those laws allow harassment of minorities, arrest for things that shouldn't even be a crime, and just general oppression. We see this with people thinking it was just to kill treyvon martin because he looked suspicious by wearing a hoodie. Outlawing hoodies does not lower crime, it just reinforces bigotry and supports violence against minorities.

Yeah, that's definitely a massive issue, but this isn't the issue. That's an issue with those police being fuckheads, not a result of the laws themselves. Getting rid of the laws would be treating the symptom, not the problem.

[UXLZ]

you really think there's going to be a rash of burqa wearing women robbing banks? Like that's a crime wave waiting to happen that justifies violating someone's religious liberty?

Nope. Of course not, that would be ridiculous.  What I do think is that women who wear burqas are capable of robbing banks (and probably have, at some point, at least) just like I think people carrying guns are capable of shooting schoolkids. Different severity, obviously, same principle.

Should I go create a religion that allows its followers complete autonomy from the law? I mean, if they tried to stop us, that would be restricting our religious rights in favor of the majority's...

Going to apologise for this ahead of time, it was a bit unnecessarily snarky. 

[Arcvasti]

edit: UXLZ I am a hardline atheist and I can still understand respecting religious freedom. Saying that is the same as them saying you have to wear a cross wherever you go. You wouldn't like that, I wouldn't like that, so we can't force our lack of faith on them individually

What I was saying was that I think (summarised) all face-concealing attire should be banned under certain circumstances (those circumstances being malls, public parks, banks, locations like that), religious or not. You may say 'but this restricts religious apparel' and I will say 'sure it does, and that's a shame, but face-concealing stuff needs to go.

I'll note that this has nothing to do with burqas, as I honestly don't really care about whether people wear them or not... Under the circumstance that they aren't in a bank. I guess I can retract not being allowed to wear face-concealing stuff in parks and malls, but certainly banks and locations where security is very important.

Also, bad choice of example. I think crosses look cool and would be fine wearing one.

I know it was recently the cause of a legal battle in one America school, the Sikhs won. Which pleased me.

Oh, cool, that means I can carry a sword around if I ever visit America.

you are thinking only of your case. How it affects you.

You are not thinking of the fact (and your locations list is terribly broad) that this violates religious beliefs of these women. To which they have a right. What they are doing hurts no one. I have yet to see a case in america where a woman wearing a hiqab or a burka caused some sort of terrorist attack. The assumption that they would, which is exactly why the law exists, is racist.

The law oppresses women unjustly. They, much like men, have the right to autonomy over their own body.

There comes a point when personal freedom starts to intersect public safety. Face-concealing garb is somewhere in there. Not being able to identify someone is not good. Its not just Burkas/Hijabs, I know places where hoodies are outlawed because they're so often used to conceal the faces of criminals from security cameras. Forbidding Burkas/Hijabs while allowing other face-cocnealing garb is an unjust restriction of rights because it only restricts a segment of the population with the stated intent of benefiting the entire population. Allowing Burkas/Hijabs while disallowing other face-concealing garb is a justified restriction of rights, as it is

A) Consistent in its stated purpose[To ensure public safety by making sure facial identification is always possible]

and

B) Neutral in its restriction of rights, as it favours no particular cultural group or ethnicity.

The same goes for the religion-connected swords of Sikhs. If they're not allowed to have them, it should be as a result of a universal ban on weaponry rather then as a specific ban on Sikhs proper. Although, IIRC, swords don't even require a permit because the size of the sheath makes them non-concealable.

No one is being threatened. Same with the hoodies. These are just shadowy fears of foreigners and black people wanting to kill innocent whites. They are not based in reality.

I know a lot of people that wear hoodies, none of which have committed a crime. They are very common. I hear criminals also wear shirts and shoes sometimes. We might want to outlaw those.

By being "neutral" you still unduly oppress different people in different ways. You restrict cultural and religious rights in favor of the majority's rights.

Lets get this straight here.

I don't believe in special rights tied to any group smaller then "person"[Person instead of human so as to include those that identify as other species or any hypothetical aliens in this scenario] unless its to give them the same rights as everyone else if they didn't have them already[EX:Someone quadrapelgic would get a medical exoskeleton to put them at the same level as everyone else, but people who don't need them don't get medical exoskeletons.]. If you're not allowed to do something for a legitimate[<-Keyword here] reason, then culture/religion/whatever shouldn't come into the equation. You could totally argue that outlawing/restricting all face-concealing items of clothing[For example.] is wrong because it infringes on people's freedoms unnecessarily[<-Another key word here] and you might very well be right. Forbidding all religious symbols is wrong because its unnecessary. Forbidding all guns is debatable because you can argue that people having lethal weapons infringes on people's fundamental rights to live peacefully.

Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Only four? And three of them by the same person? I'm almost disappointed, considering I started writing this post right after Smee posted hers.