Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Keeping in mind that the 'ban' is only in place for public institutions, I am having a hard time actually considering this all that unreasonable.

As i stated earlier. Democracy.

Now, we can all (as budding internet warriors) sit here and come up with reasons for and against, but my point remains.

If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

Its all well and good harping on about democracy when things go your way, not so good when the other guy wins.

We can argue back and forth about it all we like, but i dare say we dont agree with an alcohol ban for example, and that is the way it is in some places, should they legalize it because a minority wants it to happen?

I hate the labour government, but i have just cracked on voting and getting on with my life. Ive not tried to rally around a recount or some such nonsense. You cant just spit your dummy out when you lose a vote. Thats how it works.

And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

mattyrm wrote:As i stated earlier. Democracy.

Now, we can all (as budding internet warriors) sit here and come up with reasons for and against, but my point remains.

If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

Its all well and good harping on about democracy when things go your way, not so good when the other guy wins.

We can argue back and forth about it all we like, but i dare say we dont agree with an alcohol ban for example, and that is the way it is in some places, should they legalize it because a minority wants it to happen?

I hate the labour government, but i have just cracked on voting and getting on with my life. Ive not tried to rally around a recount or some such nonsense. You cant just spit your dummy out when you lose a vote. Thats how it works.

And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

Its depends on whether you view government as limited or not.
Not-aka the Obama/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.
Limited government is bestest government-then no thats not how it works. the will of the people as expressed through government fiat may only be applied in certain limited, spelled out circumstances. Everything else remains inviolate and untouched.

Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Good points there.

The "needs of the majority"? Come off it. Letting women wear the burka hardly impinges on the majority that much.
Also. If women are being oppressed or beaten by their husbands or uncles or dads, then the solution is to catch them at it, lock them up. Engage in outreach programs. Education programs. Integration programs. Sure, it's harder, it costs more, and it doesn't sound all hard ass and cool like banning stuff outright, but it's fairer and more effective.
If the burka is an expression of unfair oppression on women, then surely criminalising said women is a stupid way to deal with it?
(I'd also be interested to see stats on pay rates between men and women in France. If they're not equal (and they usually aren't) I call foul on them caring about women's rights.)
I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Good points there.

Gee, i wanted to say that myself, just couldn't do it (language problems)
100% submit to it

Da boss wrote:I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Is it? then how would you think of 4 men entering a bank (you can't say they're men because they have the burkha on) and start shooting randomly. you can't identify who did it. they get away
Is the security risk still minimal?
And the men could be women too, makes no difference actually. I've seen women like this

Da Boss wrote:The "needs of the majority"? Come off it. Letting women wear the burka hardly impinges on the majority that much.
Also. If women are being oppressed or beaten by their husbands or uncles or dads, then the solution is to catch them at it, lock them up. Engage in outreach programs. Education programs. Integration programs. Sure, it's harder, it costs more, and it doesn't sound all hard ass and cool like banning stuff outright, but it's fairer and more effective.
If the burka is an expression of unfair oppression on women, then surely criminalising said women is a stupid way to deal with it?
(I'd also be interested to see stats on pay rates between men and women in France. If they're not equal (and they usually aren't) I call foul on them caring about women's rights.)
I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Minimal it might be, but then take Bluewater, which banned the wearing of Hooded Tops, as people can use them to obscure their faces, making them harder to identify should they kick off. Again, same with the full on Burka. You shouldn't be allowed to hide your face in a public place. For one, it's kind of rude, and if that's not enough, who is under the veil? All too easy to hide anything when all people can see are your eyes.

I'm a lefty beardy weirdy as well, but I still feel lines need to be drawn.

mattyrm wrote:If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

I actually disagree with that statement rather strongly.

Just because the majority want something, it does not make it acceptable.

If the majority are voting to increase people's rights or privileges in a certain way, it should generally be a pass, IMO.

If the majority are voting to restrict rights of a minority group, then that should only come into power if there is a very good reason, IMO.

For example, if the majority voted to allow public nudity, or to declassify drugs for personal use, I would say go with it.

But if a majority voted that over-75s should not be allowed out in public, I'd have to ask "why?" and hear good reasons about why it is necessary to do this to protect other people's safety and/or wellbeing...

Of course, I am sure it would be easy to come up with specific examples that go against what I wrote above, but hopefully you can see the general principle.

Fifty, welcome to Democracy, where what the majority says, goes. Even if you personally disagree with it.

mattyrm wrote:
And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

Democracy doesn't deal in rightness. In fact, no political institution deals in rightness (where right is in conformance with truth). They deal in organization, and motivation; keeping the peace and developing a sense of common direction. I am right (if the issue if of discussing the specific nature of oppression) to the extent to which I can prove that I am right, whether or not people will listen to me is independent of logic.

To put it another way: If 60% of the people in England voted to institute Sharia law, would you be wrong to oppose their decision?

Fifty do you watch South Park? have you seen the episode with the elderly not being allowed to drive? if you didn't : http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/710

Believe me, it's pretty educative. Funny too

If someone wants to break the law by breaking into a bank and shooting, they can do it even if you ban burkas. I mean, unlicensed firearms are banned, but these get used in crimes all the time. Ban scarves? Ski masks? Motor bike helmets?

Are you THAT afraid of crime? That you would restrict people's freedom to make yourself feel safer, when in fact the difference is tiny?
I don't agree with banning hoodies either. The paranoia about crime is ridiculous.
To me, this all stinks of hypocrisy and closet intolerance.

Frazzled wrote:
Not-aka the Pelosi/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.

Fixed that for you.

Da Boss wrote:If someone wants to break the law by breaking into a bank and shooting, they can do it even if you ban burkas. I mean, unlicensed firearms are banned, but these get used in crimes all the time. Ban scarves? Ski masks? Motor bike helmets?

Are you THAT afraid of crime? That you would restrict people's freedom to make yourself feel safer, when in fact the difference is tiny?
I don't agree with banning hoodies either. The paranoia about crime is ridiculous.
To me, this all stinks of hypocrisy and closet intolerance.

Don't start throwing offences
I didn't say they couldn't enter a bank if weren't wearing burkhas. But if they did and shoot someone in there with burkhas on, how could you possibly identify them? same goes for any other public place, and THAT was my point.
When i go inside a bank and i wear a hat or smth, i take it off. it's not banned, but i do out of respect for the people inside.
And last but not least, i'm not afraid of crime. Believe me, crime is everywhere around me and i can pretty much take care of myself. I'm afraid for the women and kids out there who are the easy targets. And i'm definitely not paranoid

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Not-aka the Obama/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it back thanks.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

No truer word said.
We can find money for druggies, but not the blind or elderly

Really? I thought blind and elderly people were entitled to welfare in the UK.
(That was sarcasm)

The social services coundn't afford one person to sit in a room with twenty blind people, while they played bingo (with dominos).
The transport other carers, even the room was free.

But they give druggies free furniture and preferential treatment regards social housing etc

You're right, it would be so much easier for those addicts to get better if they had no furniture, or better yet, were completely homeless!
Screw it, can't take drugs if they're dead, right?

Of course if the blind die no loss eh ?

Lack of bingo is so often fatal.

but then the last blind person I know didn't sell their furniture to buy drugs

Probably couldn't get it to the shop. Being blind and all.

loki old fart wrote:but then the last blind person I know didn't sell their furniture to buy drugs

*Insert generic joke about American Health Care*

Da Boss wrote:Lack of bingo is so often fatal.

Lack of a social life leads to depression.
depressed people then neglect themselves, leading to hospital sometimes death.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BLIND DRUGGIES!!!

Wrexasaur wrote:WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BLIND DRUGGIES!!!

HOW about the blind elderly druggies?

What about blind elderly burka wearing druggies!?

Da Boss wrote:What about blind elderly IRISH burka wearing druggies!?

There thats better