On The Telly Now - Face Covering.

On the Telly now, discussion about the banning of face covering. France has implemented it, Germany is about to do it, should we follow on and do the same. Apparently if your face is fully covered it stops the wearer integrating with the general public.

 

Angel1.

I believe it's even been banned in Morocco, a Muslim country.

On the Telly now, discussion about the banning of face covering. France has implemented it, Germany is about to do it, should we follow on and do the same. Apparently if your face is fully covered it stops the wearer integrating with the general public.

 

Angel1.

 

funnily enough, which of those countries mentioned have face veils / hijabs / burkas banned and which face plenty of islamic extremist attacks.

 

lets think

 

ooh France and Germany, could there be a connection? hmmm

 

NO!! i dont believe these should be, a compulsary ban in my thinking leaves people feeling isolated, and alienated and no longer a member of lawful society, in my mind creating further terrorists, yet a ban doesnt really create anything actually better than we already have, apart from some wishful thinking in right wing idiots minds who already have a deep seated hatred of everything islamic

funnily enough, which of those countries mentioned have face veils / hijabs / burkas banned and which face plenty of islamic extremist attacks.

 

lets think

 

ooh France and Germany, could there be a connection? hmmm

Sorry mel, but plain and simply: no.

 

The measure concerns an infinitesimally small portion of the Muslim population in each country, and is designed to help keep it that way.

 

The risk of Islamic terrorist attacks exists, and Islamic terrorist attacks have happened and would happen, entirely regardless of it, so long as France is France and Germany is Germany (and not northern Syria or some other fundamentalist Muslim dominion).

 

The measure concerns an infinitesimally small portion of the Muslim population in each country, and is designed to help keep it that way.

yes and you dont get freedom for those that CHOOSE to wear it by banning their choice to wear it. and you deliberetly failed? to counter my arguement that its these types of bans that help push people towards feeling isolated and alienated which in turn can lead to people being more susceptible to radicalisation as they no longer feel wanted in society.

Edited April 24, 2017 by melthebell

Having visited Knightsbridge on a few occasions you cannot help but notice the amount of super-wealthy Arab women from places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who cover their faces whilst out & about spending their money.

 

I'm pretty sure London won't be a destination of choice for these women if we criminalise the veil.

yes and you dont get freedom for those that CHOOSE to wear it by banning their choice to wear it.

Parliamentary enquiries into the matter, backed by factual (collected) evidence, at the time of debating the ban in the Assemblée Nationale prior to its vote, showed that those who CHOOSE to wear are less than 10% of all those who wear it, wherein "all those" number approximately 4,000 out of a population of 4.something million Muslims.

 

So, 400. Logically making for 3,600 made to wear it.

 

You do (eventually) get freedom for those 3,600, when you criminalise more those who MAKE anyone wear it, than those who choose or are made to wear it.

 

Which is exactly what the legal text does and achieves.

 

Maybe read up on prosecutions and decided cases? I'm happy to help with any translation/explanation requirements.

 

Happy to see in the meantime that you've dropped your contention that burqa ban = terrorism. Or are you maintaining that line of argument? Because if you are, then you're going to have to explain to me why Britain is still so much of a target, when it doesn't have a burqa ban in place.

 

EDIT after your own EDIT

and you deliberetly failed? to counter my arguement that its these types of bans that help push people towards feeling isolated and alienated which in turn can lead to people being more susceptible to radicalisation as they no longer feel wanted in society.

There is a single ban in place, on face-covering garments, of which burqas (and you'll hopefully note that I'm not hypocritical nor resorting to bad faith with hiding behind the usual 'but the security, banks <yadda-yadda-yadda>' rubbish regularly trotted out to defend this ban: it was only ever targeting burqas really, not ifs or buts).

 

Attempted bans on burkinis last summer were very promptly killed off by the Conseil d'Etat as unconstitutional.

 

No other ban, other than those directed at all ostentatious religious garments/accessories in public service buildings, schools and offices (which all pre-date the burqa ban by decades).

 

I think you'll find that it's the symbology of France's western democracy, as a centennial bastion both of anti-religious obscurantism and laicism, more recently its gradual socio-economic ghettoisation of its immigrated ex-colonial minorities and, still more recently, its involvement in Afghan and air strikes in Syria and Libya, that are collectively conspiring to make it a target, orders of magnitude more than its burqa ban.

 

I mean, it's not as if it hasn't been a target for militant jihadism for decades, years and years before the burqa ban.

 

But whatever floats your ultraliberal blinkers.

Edited April 24, 2017 by L00b

Parliamentary enquiries into the matter, backed by factual (collected) evidence, at the time of debating the ban in the Assemblée Nationale prior to its vote, showed that those who CHOOSE to wear are less than 10% of all those who wear it, wherein "all those" number approximately 4,000 out of a population of 4.something million Muslims.

 

So, 400. Logically making for 3,600 made to wear it.

 

You do (eventually) get freedom for those 3,600, when you criminalise more those who MAKE anyone wear it, than those who choose or are made to wear it.

 

Which is exactly what the legal text does and achieves.

 

Maybe read up on prosecutions and decided cases? I'm happy to help with any translation/explanation requirements.

 

Happy to see in the meantime that you've dropped your contention that burqa ban = terrorism. Or are you maintaining that line of argument?

i havent dropped anything, and i never said it leads to terrorism, i said IT CAN and i stand by it, no matter how many people or how lesser people wear it the point i made you are alienating part of society, for what? absolutely nothing, it doesnt solve a thing. there isnt a major issue with people wearing it, apart from in the minds of islamophobes....which again this arguement has been sparked by that nutter bloke in UKIP

On the Telly now, discussion about the banning of face covering. France has implemented it, Germany is about to do it, should we follow on and do the same. Apparently if your face is fully covered it stops the wearer integrating with the general public.

 

Gesture politics? To show that politicians are "cracking down" on something or other.

 

There is a great deal more than wearing a burqa that divides a country and prevents integration.

Gesture politics? To show that politicians are "cracking down" on something or other.

 

There is a great deal more than wearing a burqa that divides a country and prevents integration.

exactly

 

like wealth, poverty, social alienation, lack of education, lack of services

I am not sure a ban would work well in the UK. France and Germany both have different legal cultures to those of the UK. These tend to enable the state to have a somewhat bigger role in imposing laws which restrict certain types of social behaviour and also freedom of speech. For example, this has been reflected in the rejection of the multicultural approach to diversity issues, as practised in the UK. Also, once something has gained a foothold, it is then difficult to remove it. There are also many muslim groups in the UK who are probably spoiling for a fight with the government and a burka ban would only inflame their sense of grievance and provide them with a cause to pursue. A ban would probably not be worth the trouble.

i havent dropped anything, and i never said it leads to terrorism, i said IT CAN and i stand by it,

Could have fooled me, there, mel:

funnily enough, which of those countries mentioned have face veils / hijabs / burkas banned and which face plenty of islamic extremist attacks.

 

lets think

 

ooh France and Germany, could there be a connection? hmmm

no matter how many people or how lesser people wear it the point i made you are alienating part of society, for what? absolutely nothing, it doesnt solve a thing. there isnt a major issue with people wearing it, apart from in the minds of islamophobes....which again this arguement has been sparked by that nutter bloke in UKIP

It helps stop its wider adoption amongst a Muslim population, however long-established or newly-arrived, growing more fundamentalist, thereby denying wahabists and their ilk the oxygen of publicity for harder Islam, that is associated with burqas slowly becoming the new normal (as it quite clearly is slowly and steadily doing over here).

 

Ever since there's been Saudi petrodollars, there's always been Yashmak'd Saudi wives splashing petrodollars in Knightsbridge. But in 20 years, I'd never seen a Yashmak'd driver filling up at Anston's Shell petrol station before last Saturday. Now, it's a free country, she can do what she likes, and I'm not judgemental in making that remark - just observational. But when it will be the norm for female Muslims, drivers or not, like in Saudi (for the few who are allowed to drive there, male-accompanied), maybe you'll see the point of the ban. Too late, like, but well...

 

For the rest, see my edits.

Edited April 24, 2017 by L00b