Oh, had we started already? What is your point?
My point is that, unlike any other religious or cultural affectation, such as wearing a turban, sporting big curly sideburns, wearing a crucifix, etc, the right to the wearing of a face covering, except when legitimately challenged, can be abused to the detriment of society.
And it is also dehumanising.
Well, while we both agree that it isn’t guaranteed (and that a totally negative result is also not guaranteed), you presumably think that there’s a good likelihood that such a ban will both a) actually work and b) outweigh the potential negatives. I don’t think that such an idea is going to remove people from an oppressive culture, because the culture still exists. I think the inherent problem is that for a ban to work in that sort of situation you’re essentially asking an oppressive situation to give up control and power, and that’s unlikely to happen.
Hey, on those terms, there’s plenty of things a ban justification could arise for. Drinking, smoking, driving. “Unreasonable” is a subjective trait. And, again, you seem to be assuming that your plan will actually work - that what’s being questioned is whether we should do it, not whether it will actually help out. I question both of those things.
Any other? There are no religious or cultural affectations other than wearing a face covering that could be abused to the detriment of society? I can think of a few things.
Beyond that, if it is “face coverings” that are the problem, why isn’t this a call for banning face coverings? Wouldn’t that - at the very least - appear a lot less to be singling out Muslims? I mean, if the admitted problem is with a general thing (face coverings) and yet the solution applies to only a particular subset of that general thing - a particular subset associated with Muslims - i’m not entirely sure how you can claim that this doesn’t single out Muslims. It very much seems to to my eyes.
Don’t we already have prohibitions on those actions? And when their usage affects other people negatively, they are imposed.
When you are ready.
Muslims are the only ones who want to wear them where it suits them. We already have restrictions on when non-muslim people can cover their faces.
Sorry, I was aware of the adverts by a labour starved country at the end of a world war (for the London busses as I recall) but that was,
(A) Half a century ago
(B) Asking for LABOUR from overseas, not saying please come to our country because we want to intergrate your culture with ours.
Again sorry, I realise this is a very touchy subject with you, but that doesn’t excuse misinterpreteting your own cites because you are emotionally involved with the subject.
The U.K., or as far as I know any other Western nation, (but I’m welcome to be corrected )has ever advertised for immigrants as part of some sort of “cultural cross pollinating programme.”
Refering to some posts upthread, I have seen signs outside banks in both the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland saying that there will be no admittance to their premises for people who refuse to take their motorcycle crash helmets off.
(For pretty obvious reasons)
And once again REVENANT, Islam does NOT demand that women wear veils.
Not completely. And the difference here is on one hand imposing prohibitions when the abuse of a right takes place, and on the other imposing prohibitions on any use of a right* in case* abuse takes place. Arresting or fining, say, a drunk man whose causing a disturbance is equivalent to arresting or fining a woman actively trying to shoplift using her clothes to hide stuff, not just a woman wearing particular clothes because she might do something. We don’t have a law against being drunk, because being drunk can potentially lead to abuse.
I think it’s fair to argue drinking and smoking as cultural affectations. There’s the use of church bells or calls to prayer, you might include the use of cultural or religious symbols which could intimidate or upset some, or attempt to proseylatize. You yourself have pointed out that some clothing is better for hiding items than others. We have some culture specific language and physical gestures that may be used to insult or offend.
You mean we have restrictions which specifically exclude Muslims? Could you cite some of these restrictions, please?
Christianity does not demand that Christians take the Eucharist. Doesn’t make the Eucharist unChristian, just means that it’s not a matter of religion for some Christians. Likewise, that for some, or even most, Muslims, the veil is not a religious requirement doesn’t mean that it isn’t for others.
And capitals aren’t necessary. 
You mean outside of the ME area?
giving grace before every meal, the lord’s prayer, hail mary’s, the papacy in general, speaking in tongues, snake handling, and a million other things that are implicitly religious have no textual basis to it either and yet, we all can recognize the theological implications of those things can’t we?
if France was to BAN catholicism since its hierarchy is sexist in nature, would you say that it’s an empowerment issue and not a religious issue since in the Bible, nowhere does it say anything about cardinals, priests, or popes?
the burqa ban has religious implications to it. even if it doesn’t, it has cultural implications which makes it as prejudice as a ban on bindis.
the security argument, to me at least, would be a lot more compelling but they would have to alter the language to say face COVERINGS rather than face VEILS. The refusal to write the law in that language implies racial motivations, no?
Women aren’t a separate race. And the culture that requires its women to wear a burkha and niqab isn’t one that we should want in the west.
Although I broadly agree that burqas stem from an oppressive culture, I can’t see any law regulating women’s clothing and appearance, especially one made by a majority-male legislative body, as anything but regressive and sexist itself.
Women in Afghanistan, now freed from their former government’s burqa policy and making their own choices, can’t understand why Western nations would want to impose one.
Well Afghanistan is certainly not in the Middle East. But far fewer than half the women I come across wear a face veil. Maybe a quarter. But that is distorted by the number of non-Islamic women I encounter, and the presumption only the more open women go to shopping malls.
But really, how many women in France (Belgium, the USA) are we talking about? A vanishingly small number.
In Yemen, a woman without a face veil is the exception. You work in Dammam where it isn’t required by law. In Riyadh from what I hear it is required. I see them regularly in Dubai. I’ve only seen it a few times in Canada, though.
Yeah, but…
We are really talking about the number of women in France who choose to wear the veil.
the original BBC article cites 1900 but i’ve seen figures on the Daily Telegraph that reported upwards to 100,000. One may be strictly burka, and the other facial-veils in general? Either way, out of 53 mil, it’s a relatively small percentage. less than 1 in 500 people.
So, how many do we have to let it get up to before we say “Fuck it, make all the harlots cover themselves up. They are distracting the menfolk from more important things.”?
That isn’t a point. It’s a complaint.
I invite you to tell a woman who voluntary dons a burqa that she’s less human for it and see what she says.
That’s how immigration works. You can’t expect people to step off a boat and immediately start thinking Morecambe and Wise are funny or that fried tomatoes are a delicacy. It takes time.
If you have a welcoming culture- or are welcoming to members of a specific culture- immigrants will be quickly assimilated and before you know it a few aspects of their culture (vindaloo, dreadlocks, shampoo, the blues) are an integral part of yours, and they all speak your language and wear your clothes and so on.
If you have an unwelcoming culture, they all live in ghettoes, get stuck in dead-end jobs (if they’re employed at all) and might not even learn to speak the language.
Emphasis on ‘voluntary’. I’m not concerned about those who voluntarily choose to put the thing on. They can voluntarily take it off anytime. I’m concerned about those who are forcibly made to wear them.
i think we all are concerned for that woman, but this ban is not going to do jack shit to curb that behavior.
and ivan, opposing a burqa ban is not the same thing as supporting madatory burqa-wearing. plus, i was merely trying to cite figures. i guess there was some implication that the small percentages made the proactiveness of this ban seem even more ridiculous.