Print

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

[Graknorke]

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.

Well face coverings are more part of the culture surrounding the religion than a religious tenet. And apart from that it's for identification purposes. Like how shops won't let you in with a motorbike helmet on. Makes surveillance easier.

[smeeprocket]

Well people with feet and hands are capable of robbing banks and we haven't started removing those.

You are coming up with highly unlikely scenarios, something that would be a one off, and restricting the religious freedom of multiple religions just for that.

And black people are way more likely to be accused of shoplifting, illegal hoodies would definitely be aimed directly at them.

The only people this law would affect would be muslim women, it would be aimed at them and is frankly, quite racist. I also feel a woman's autonomy over her body is more important than hypothetical bank robberies that have never happened ever.

You start caring too much about situations that are remote and crack down hard enough, and no one has any freedom but the bourgeoisie.

[Virtz]

Well people with feet and hands are capable of robbing banks and we haven't started removing those.

You're doing that thing again. Purposefully disregarding the point. Do you really want people to waste time explaining the uses of hands and feet compared to the uses of face-concealing attire inside a bank?


On a somewhat related note, Poland's been repeatedly trying to ban face covering attire in public gatherings due to far-right-wing rioters and football hooligans showing up in balaclavas and other face-covering attire, making it difficult for police to identify perpetrators based on video recordings. Considering the city damage these sorts of people cause, I think that's a pretty good justification.

[scriver]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

[UXLZ]

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.

Hey, two of them were really long posts you bastard! DX

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Generally? Yes. If you're robbing a bank? No.

[Graknorke]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

How do you define that in law though? You can't know for sure what somebody's intent is in wearing something.

[Helgoland]

Isn't it banned to go into a gas station with a motorbike helmet on? I think this might be a case to consider.

For the record, I think the French blanket ban on burkas is a disgrace, just like the ban (I don't know which country, probably from the Benelux region, or Germany or France) on teachers wearing headscarves - a much more blatantly racist law, and a much bigger issue.

[Virtz]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes. If you leave religious attire alone while banning other kinds of concealing clothing, then wouldn't a clever law-breaker use that loop hole? Like it doesn't even have to be someone of that religion committing the crime, and who's gonna check if you're of the religion the attire is related to?

And it's not like they've never been worn to conceal identity with criminal intent. Here's an article I found on the matter, which says this is actually something that's already happened in the US, links to original sources and everything.

[Arcvasti]

For the record, I think the French blanket ban on burkas is a disgrace, just like the ban (I don't know which country, probably from the Benelux region, or Germany or France) on teachers wearing headscarves - a much more blatantly racist law, and a much bigger issue.

^This.

[scriver]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

How do you define that in law though? You can't know for sure what somebody's intent is in wearing something.

No, but if only 0,02% of for example burkha-wearing people wear it to make identification harder then you can make an exception for those specific types of clothing in the law. If w change in their usage can be tracked then the law can be modified to compensate.

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.

[UXLZ]

The French ban is definitely a disgrace.

Also, while I know it's quite insensitive, something that always really irritates me is when religions are given excessive coddling in regards to laws such as this. Just because your religion says you have to carry a gun around all the time, it doesn't make you special and mean you should be allowed to carry a gun around all the time. Laws should apply to everyone equally with no thought to religion. (That is, no thought whatsoever. This also would mean not making laws that discriminate against religion.)

The burkha issue itself is debatable. It's probably too extreme of a case to warrant outlawing.

[Virtz]

There is a difference between banning clothes worn with the explicit intent of hiding your identity while you commit crimes and banning burkhas. Bhurkas are not worn with the intent of hiding yourself from identification.

Neither are ski-masks usually, but they're still used for that purpose sometimes.

Ski masks are only worn form non-misdirection purposes outside in winter. Burkhas' non-misdirection use is everywhere, every time of year. The practical difference between the two is quite big.

They're actually worn by some motorcyclists all year around. And motorcycles are gaining in popularity where I live.


Ok, how about this in regards to religion, again a case in Poland - parlament was trying to ban ritual killing of animals due to its potential animal cruelty. This was mostly in regards to Judaic practitioners that bleed animals alive in order to make their meat kosher (their meat has to be fully drained of blood, among other things). Constitutional Tribunal overruled it, though.

So my question is this - do you think someone's rights of religion are important enough to allow animal cruelty? And if not, then why is the security of other human beings any different?

[Cheeetar]

I think calling burkas a security issue is mislabeling it a bit. They have a potential to hide identity, but they're much less dangerous than say, a knife, or a gun, or a large stick.

[Leafsnail]

The whole burka "debate" is insane because the number of people who actually wore it in countries like France and Belgium was literally in the low hundreds.  The actual effect of such laws is tiny, their only purpose is to make a racist statement.

I also like the idea that "someone used this item to help them commit a crime once" is a sufficient reason to ban something.

[UXLZ]

The whole burka "debate" is insane because the number of people who actually wore it in countries like France and Belgium were literally in the low hundreds.  The actual effect such laws is tiny, it's only purpose is to make a racist statement.

I also like the idea that "someone used this item to help them commit a crime once" is a sufficient reason to ban something.

Technically, it happened more than once.

I'm going to state that while I don't really condone the burkha ban specifically because it's silly, my stance is basically that religions shouldn't be allowed to have special privileges that go against public safety or security because 'it might hurt their feelings.' is ridiculous and discriminatory by nature.