Proposed Burqa/veil ban

[Alien]

@aclubs

One more thing. There’s a huge difference between these two circumstances:

-“I’m refusing service to everyone wearing a total face covering (masks, skimasks, burqas, etc) because I believe it’s important to be able to see the face of someone you’re conversing with.”
-“I’m refusing service to everyone wearing a burqa because I don’t like the Islam.”

One is legit. The other is not.

IMO, both are legit. People shouldn’t have to dress in a particular way, legislated by the government, to buy food or do other basic stuff. I know I don’t have to engage in deep conversations to buy a burger. But these people don’t want the ban because of “security resons” or to “improve conversations”. I suspect the “I don’t like the Islam” reason is what’s at play here.

The race example aside, the question still stands: should the government or private businesses be allowed to ban a piece of clothing or refuse service because of another group’s sentiments or preferences? That’s a pretty big slippery slope in my book.

[Alien]

:smack: I meant, both are *not *legit

[aclubs]

I suppose I wasn’t clear. It’s perfectly legit for the business to do the former, not to do the latter.

For the government to mandate that the private business disallow burqas is illegitimate, as the business owner can set the rules she sees fit.

[griffin1977]

@Alien

The race example aside, the question still stands: should the government or private businesses be allowed to ban a piece of clothing or refuse service because of another group’s sentiments or preferences? That’s a pretty big slippery slope in my book.

The government should NOT. Under any circumstances.

What you allow or ban in you private business is up to you (to a point), you can legislate against being d*ck. If you want to turn down business because your personal hang-ups thats your call.

[The_Octagon]

@Magiver

I disagree with your logic. They’re banning face coverings, not burqa’s. There’s a differense. It’s logical to ban people from wearing masks in area’s where identification is in the public interest.

To answer your question, yes there is a particularly high rate of crime by people wearing masks. It happens every day in banks and businesses. It is not comparable to the wearing of baggy pants in matters of security.

You’re oversimplifying. If someone comes into a bank or a corner store wearing a ski mask, the reaction from security or employees would be far different than if they were wearing a burqa or a veil. If I see a Muslim woman wearing a head or face covering pushing a shopping cart at the grocery store, am I to assume she’s not going to pay for it? Are they doomed to be further oppressed by staying home, as they can no longer be seen in their religious garb in public?

Are robbers expected to throw their hands up in defeat because wearing a full facial covering is illegal? And what about eyepatches, bandages, makeup or long hair? Skirting the fact that the law is discriminatory leaves no logical law remaining.

[lee]

@The Flying Dutchman

This reminds me of the recently outlawed practice of binding the feet of little girls in Japan. That never hurt anybody else either.

Point of information, footbinding was done in China, and when the Japanese took control of Taiwan in 1895 they outlawed foot-binding there. I don’t think that footbinding was practiced in Japan. Footbinding was outlawed in China in 1911, but not really obliterated until the Cultural Revolution.

[FRDE]

I have to confess that I find the veil and the burqa highly offensive

• at one time I found it odd and slightly unsettling
• but now I know what it means (even if it is not intended), it is, to me offensive

Personally I consider it courteous to conform reasonably with the dress codes of the society in which one lives.

I see no problems with banning ski masks, hoodies or other face coverings.

Incidentally I’ve just been reading John Simpson’s memoirs (BBC television reporter), in late 2001 he and his cameraman bought two huge burquas in Peshawar and got themselves smuggled into Afghanistan to film Taliban soldiers snoozing.

They were interested to find how much kit could be carried under those robes.

[Magiver]

@The Octagon

You’re oversimplifying. If someone comes into a bank or a corner store wearing a ski mask, the reaction from security or employees would be far different than if they were wearing a burqa or a veil. If I see a Muslim woman wearing a head or face covering pushing a shopping cart at the grocery store, am I to assume she’s not going to pay for it? Are they doomed to be further oppressed by staying home, as they can no longer be seen in their religious garb in public?

Are robbers expected to throw their hands up in defeat because wearing a full facial covering is illegal? And what about eyepatches, bandages, makeup or long hair? Skirting the fact that the law is discriminatory leaves no logical law remaining.

If you see a person wearing a burqa you cannot assume it’s a woman because Identification is impossible. That’s the point of the debate. There’s nothing descriminatory or illogical about it. It applies to everyone.

[Quartz]

I notice that none of these moslem women are emigrating to moslem countries.

[The_Octagon]

@Magiver

If you see a person wearing a burqa you cannot assume it’s a woman because Identification is impossible. That’s the point of the debate. There’s nothing descriminatory or illogical about it. It applies to everyone.

It is discriminatory because it makes no sense. There is no logical reason to suspect these people as criminals.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

If you see a person wearing a burqa you cannot assume it’s a woman because Identification is impossible. That’s the point of the debate. There’s nothing descriminatory or illogical about it. It applies to everyone.

Supposedly, if you are familiar with women wearings burqas, it’s not so hard to spot a man in one. If there was a string of robberies by people wearing burqas, you might have a point - but since the garment would probably reduce their range of movement, I wouldn’t expect that. Every article I’ve read on this topic says that very few Dutch women wear burqas in the first place. This is an anti-Islamic gesture, not a public security one.

[Magiver]

@The Octagon

It is discriminatory because it makes no sense. There is no logical reason to suspect these people as criminals.

“these people” are people wearing masks, not burqas. Making exceptions makes no sense and would be discriminatory.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

Supposedly, if you are familiar with women wearings burqas, it’s not so hard to spot a man in one. If there was a string of robberies by people wearing burqas, you might have a point - but since the garment would probably reduce their range of movement, I wouldn’t expect that. Every article I’ve read on this topic says that very few Dutch women wear burqas in the first place. This is an anti-Islamic gesture, not a public security one.

I disagree. There is no way you can tell by looking at someone wearing a burqa who is wearing it. It could be a man. It could be a Hasidic Jewish transvestite midget. And by your logic if it represents a minority of Muslim women how could it be an anti-Islamic gesture.

Masks represent a criminal tool and exceptions for religious reasons defeats the purpose of the law. If it becomes the exception then it will become the norm for criminals to abuse. That would create an anti-Islamic climate by itself. And if the burqa is exempt then so will the headwear that Islamic terrorists use to avoid identification.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

There is no way you can tell by looking at someone wearing a burqa who is wearing it.

I’ve heard stories like this before.

At the makeshift border check-post, the Litmus Test required her to walk fifty meters wearing the regressive apparel. Her deceit lasted only a few steps when shouts of “Russian spy” were heard.

And by your logic if it represents a minority of Muslim women how could it be an anti-Islamic gesture.

So you are not discriminating against a particular religion unless you discriminate against all members of that religion? By that logic, a law barring men from wearing payios wouldn’t be anti-Semitic because not all Jews have them. Sorry, that doesn’t work. The government is talking about barring a particularly Islamic garment. The French didn’t only ban the hijab two years ago, but it’s nonetheless clear what they were doing. There’s a context for this debate, and you have to consider the situation in the Netherlands for the last few years.

Masks represent a criminal tool and exceptions for religious reasons defeats the purpose of the law. If it becomes the exception then it will become the norm for criminals to abuse.

Pure supposition. If there was a problem with thieves using burqas, that might be a logical course of action. Why is this being discussed in the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree England, now? Because those countries have had problems with Islamic fanaticism - none of it carried out by anybody in a burqa - and this is how they’re dealing with it.

That would create an anti-Islamic climate by itself. And if the burqa is exempt then so will the headwear that Islamic terrorists use to avoid identification.

That’s nonsense. There’s plenty of anti-Muslim prejudice in the Netherlands already, that’s why they’re at the forefront of this debate. I’m not sure what headwear you are referring to, but I don’t know of any face-covering garment that Muslim men wear.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

I’ve heard stories like this before.

What does this have to do with Holland? Could you tell if a person in NY was wearing a burqa as a criminal tool?

@Marley23

So you are not discriminating against a particular religion unless you discriminate against all members of that religion? By that logic, a law barring men from wearing payios wouldn’t be anti-Semitic because not all Jews have them. Sorry, that doesn’t work. The government is talking about barring a particularly Islamic garment. The French didn’t only ban the hijab two years ago, but it’s nonetheless clear what they were doing. There’s a context for this debate, and you have to consider the situation in the Netherlands for the last few years.

We’re not talking about the French and the law in question does not specify burqa’s. We’re talking about the Dutch and the use of masks.

@Marley23

Pure supposition. If there was a problem with thieves using burqas, that might be a logical course of action. Why is this being discussed in the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree England, now? Because those countries have had problems with Islamic fanaticism - none of it carried out by anybody in a burqa - and this is how they’re dealing with it.

Again, laws regarding masks make sense. England has invested a tremendous amount of capital in cameras to monitor public areas. Burqas defeat this tool.

@Marley23

That’s nonsense. There’s plenty of anti-Muslim prejudice in the Netherlands already, that’s why they’re at the forefront of this debate. I’m not sure what headwear you are referring to, but I don’t know of any face-covering garment that Muslim men wear.

The anti-Muslim prejudice is a direct result of Islamic terrorism. If you aren’t familiar with the head garments worn my Islamic men for the purposes of hiding their identity than watch the evening news. Making exceptions for religious reasons would allow any and all forms of dress.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

What does this have to do with Holland?

It was a response to your claim that it’s impossible to tell anything about a person wearing a burqa. The article also notes that you can tell if it’s a man or a woman if there’s any wind blowing.

Could you tell if a person in NY was wearing a burqa as a criminal tool?

If it ever happens in the first place, I’ll start trying to tell.

We’re not talking about the French and the law in question does not specify burqa’s. We’re talking about the Dutch and the use of masks.

I should just re-type the text that you quoted, because you didn’t respond to anything I said.
*A law can discriminate against people of a religious faith without targeting every single person of that faith.
*This law doesn’t apply to burqas alone; the French law didn’t apply only to hijabs. You would have to completely ignore the political and cultural situation in Europe to think that these bans are concerned only with public safety and aren’t related to Europe’s struggles with Muslim immigrants.

Again, laws regarding masks make sense. England has invested a tremendous amount of capital in cameras to monitor public areas. Burqas defeat this tool.

England is not the only country that has cameras and criminal detection equipment in public. Nonetheless, we are not living in 1984 and the government does not have an absolute right to tell me what I can and cannot wear to make sure its spying equipment is effective.

The anti-Muslim prejudice is a direct result of Islamic terrorism.

And how do laws that target Muslims help reduce that prejudice?

If you aren’t familiar with the head garments worn my Islamic men for the purposes of hiding their identity than watch the evening news. Making exceptions for religious reasons would allow any and all forms of dress.

Are you thinking of what the guys in the beheading videos wore? I thought those were just keffiyehs, which don’t normally cover the face. And again, all the terrorist attacks in the West that I know of were carried out by people who weren’t wearing those.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

If it ever happens in the first place, I’ll start trying to tell.

Don’t try too hard because its designed so that you DON’T look at women and if custom is maintained the burqa comes with chaperone.

@Marley23

*A law can discriminate against people of a religious faith without targeting every single person of that faith.

. Not if it’s not directed at a religion, which this law is not.

@Marley23

England is not the only country that has cameras and criminal detection equipment in public. Nonetheless, we are not living in 1984 and the government does not have an absolute right to tell me what I can and cannot wear to make sure its spying equipment is effective.

Really. If there is a law that says you can’t wear a mask then you are breaking the law if you do. There is no debate in this respect.

@Marley23

And how do laws that target Muslims help reduce that prejudice?

Since the law doesn’t target Muslims but people wearing masks it would prevent people from emulating Muslims in the commission of a crime.

@Marley23

Are you thinking of what the guys in the beheading videos wore? I thought those were just keffiyehs, which don’t normally cover the face. And again, all the terrorist attacks in the West that I know of were carried out by people who weren’t wearing those.

Every day someone is robbed by a person wearing a mask. Making it illegal to walk around in a mask cannot include religious exceptions. Your continued focus on burqas is misdirected. The proposed law is not specific to burqas, regardless of your feelings about the matter.

[Alien]

@Magiver

Every day someone is robbed by a person wearing a mask. Making it illegal to walk around in a mask cannot include religious exceptions.

By that logic you need to ban guns too. And a lot of other things. I don’t think that would be well-received.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

Don’t try too hard because its designed so that you DON’T look at women and if custom is maintained the burqa comes with chaperone.

My statement was conditional: if people ever start robbing banks while wearing burqas, I’ll worry about it. I doubt that’s going to happen. Personally, whenever I read a police bulletin about a robbery (which I have to do fairly regularly at work), if the suspect is wearing any kind of a disguise, it’s just a hooded sweatshirt and a handkerchief. Those are innocuous items of clothing that can be used to hide your identity. Burqas would never make good disguises in that regard. Maybe they would in a Muslim country, but I don’t see that happening in the Netherlands.

Not if it’s not directed at a religion, which this law is not.

To me, this is a simple matter of common sense. In the US, the poll taxes and grandfather clauses that were created after slavery ended were not explicitly directed at anybody. But in reality, the message was clear enough and the laws most certainly had a target.

Really. If there is a law that says you can’t wear a mask then you are breaking the law if you do. There is no debate in this respect.

Really? The Netherlands has no court system? If the government passes a law, that’s it, there’s zero recourse?

Since the law doesn’t target Muslims but people wearing masks it would prevent people from emulating Muslims in the commission of a crime.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever emulated a Muslim while robbing a bank. Find me a cite if you want to tell me this is an epidemic or something. If you asked Dutch Muslims “which do you think would do more to reduce anti-Muslim prejudice: banning burqas so people don’t imitate Muslims while robbing banks, or allowing Muslim women to wear the religious garments of their choice,” I think I know what they’d say.

Every day someone is robbed by a person wearing a mask.

If it’s such a big problem, one wonders why society doesn’t just ban anyone from making masks.

Oh, that’s right. It’s because that would be ineffective, and an overreaction. People who are intent covering their faces to commit crimes will do it anyway. Reducing the right to religious expression doesn’t solve the problem.

Your continued focus on burqas is misdirected. The proposed law is not specific to burqas, regardless of your feelings about the matter.

It’s not written to be specific to burqas - who would be that stupid? - but it’s pretty clearly related. If the Dutch have experienced some kind of massive upswing in robberies by people wearing masks, that’s one thing. But in reality, this is connected to the problem of Islam in Europe: terrorist attacks, the riots in France, anti-immigrant sentiments in the Netherlands, Tony Blair’s comments that veils are a mark of separation and that he’s not sure anybody who wears one can be a productive member of society, and so on.

[dropzone]

@aclubs

Heck, it’s a habit of folks I know to take off sunglasses when driving and being stopped at a tollbooth or drive-in, or when pulled over by a police officer.

Maybe when pulled over, unless their shades are prescription and a requirement to safely operate their vehicle, but why on earth would they take them off for toll booths or drive-ins? That sounds, um, stupid and unnecesary.

About the rest of this discussion, after decades of hearing from smug Europeans about how less racist their countries are than the US, the recent anti-Muslim uproars from over there have been oddly satisfying for me. I’m very happy to live in a country where a woman can wear a burka if she wishes to. AND where, come the depths of winter, I can wear a ski mask or scarf to keep my nose warm without needing to convince most people that I’m not in the midst of a heist. Those of you who are afraid of little Muslim women dressed all in black are, frankly, coming across as seriously creepy.