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.

As for Frazzled endless anchormaneque news peddling; on this topic, I hope they ban burkas. I find them rude in the same way that I find people wearing sunglasses rude. If you want to talk to me in person, have the decency to talk to me as openly as I do you. I couldn't give a hoot what cosy voodoo you subscibe to; we're human beings who are communicating. I'd make an exception if I was asked to perform differently in a foreign nation; the same should be said likewise.

Wait, why the lack of Frazzled love? Do need some dachshund time? Santa provides.

This is an issue that bothers me and honestly I cant see a ban on burkas ending well.

If the bad in universally passed into law will I, as a middle class white male, be disallowed from wearing a big sheet and head scarf showing nothing but my eyes? Probably not. I'll be left happily to do what the hell I like.

It will probably transpire that only muslim women will be disallowed from wearing them. So a single piece of legislation has managed to discriminate against both women and muslims. Thats two big birds that you've just killed with that one discriminatory stone. By rights if one member of society is not allowed something, then no member of society should be allowed something.

If you want to ban them on religious grounds then you also need to ban crucifixes, jewish skull caps and anything else that can be worn that donates religious belief. Hell you need to just remove sikhs from everywhere completely because their religion compels them to carry turbans/knives/beards around with them.

Trying to ban them because the oppress women is avoiding the important issue completely. Burkas arent the cause of any oppression. At worst burkas are the result of oppression. Banning burkas wont stop any oppression at all. If you want to deal with that you have to look at the roots. Fundamentalist muslim groups cause as much trouble as fundamentalist christians/jews/hindus - whatever, so this is what needs to be legislated. Burkas may be a symptom of the problem, but they certainly arent the cause. Its like banning handbags to stop muggings or banks to stop robberies.

But ultimately banning people from doing what they want to do creates more issues than it solves. If muslim women can be stopped from wearing burkas then you can be stopped from weaing socks, or the colour green, or anything that has too much fuzz. Erosion of liberty is a very slippery slope.

Public opinion in much of europe may (foolishly) support such a ban, but only because it would never affect the vast majority of europeans. You try banning cheese or beer and see what happens. But government should interfere with the lives of its people as little as possible. People should be allowed to wear what they like and if there is a problem then it is the cause of the problem that needs to be dealt with, not the symptoms.

One of the reason some european countries are superior developed according to me, is its view on religion.
Religious is something private, and europeans, at least scandinavians think you should keep it private.

Although my oppinion is pretty biased, since i live in the least religios place in the world.



Yes, im joking.

Regwon wrote:This is an issue that bothers me and honestly I cant see a ban on burkas ending well.

If the bad in universally passed into law will I, as a middle class white male, be disallowed from wearing a big sheet and head scarf showing nothing but my eyes? Probably not. I'll be left happily to do what the hell I like.

It will probably transpire that only muslim women will be disallowed from wearing them. So a single piece of legislation has managed to discriminate against both women and muslims. Thats two big birds that you've just killed with that one discriminatory stone. By rights if one member of society is not allowed something, then no member of society should be allowed something.

If you want to ban them on religious grounds then you also need to ban crucifixes, jewish skull caps and anything else that can be worn that donates religious belief. Hell you need to just remove sikhs from everywhere completely because their religion compels them to carry turbans/knives/beards around with them.

Trying to ban them because the oppress women is avoiding the important issue completely. Burkas arent the cause of any oppression. At worst burkas are the result of oppression. Banning burkas wont stop any oppression at all. If you want to deal with that you have to look at the roots. Fundamentalist muslim groups cause as much trouble as fundamentalist christians/jews/hindus - whatever, so this is what needs to be legislated. Burkas may be a symptom of the problem, but they certainly arent the cause. Its like banning handbags to stop muggings or banks to stop robberies.

But ultimately banning people from doing what they want to do creates more issues than it solves. If muslim women can be stopped from wearing burkas then you can be stopped from weaing socks, or the colour green, or anything that has too much fuzz. Erosion of liberty is a very slippery slope.

Public opinion in much of europe may (foolishly) support such a ban, but only because it would never affect the vast majority of europeans. You try banning cheese or beer and see what happens. But government should interfere with the lives of its people as little as possible. People should be allowed to wear what they like and if there is a problem then it is the cause of the problem that needs to be dealt with, not the symptoms.

*claps* good show sir, You summed it up better than I could. Also I think banning burkas could really piss off some islamic groups. No point in poking the bear eh?

The Financial Times wrote:Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

In other news, I find it hilarious that some Americans posting on this thread are criticising Europe for being intolerant towards Muslims.

Albatross wrote:
In other news, I find it hilarious that some Americans posting on this thread are criticising Europe for being intolerant towards Muslims.

Is that because you lump all Americans into one group and have the strange idea that we are all the same? One group does one thing so we all must do it? That is a bit silly isn't it?

@Ahtman

SOME Americans. SOME. SOME!

Where did you get the idea that I was lumping all americans together?

Albatross wrote:@Ahtman

SOME Americans. SOME. SOME!

Where did you get the idea that I was lumping all americans together?

I was just kidding because the title of the thread lumps all of Europe together.

Albatross wrote:

The Financial Times wrote:Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

In other news, I find it hilarious that some Americans posting on this thread are criticising Europe for being intolerant towards Muslims.

Well, europe is almost universally reacting to the economic downturn by becoming incredibly xenophobic towards immigrant worker populations. We got over our muslim hysteria around 2006, yours is just starting and has seemingly weaker ground for it's base.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, because the extreme minority of muslims are doing so much to alter european culture. 6% of people in france are muslim, 3% of those are women, likely ~1.5% wear Bhurkhas in public places. One in seventy five women are destroying european culture in france. For reference around 4.5% of the german population is muslim and less than 3% of the UK.

The burka is actually really, really rare in France, as most of the Muslim population comes from Balkan countries where the burka isn't worn. There's actually no more than a couple of hundred women in the whole country who wear it. But this has nothing to do with muslim invasion or the rights of women, and everything to do with controlling a scary thing, to give a feeling of security.

Europeans just think muslims are scary. There is no muslim debasement of european culture. Just european debasement of it (freedom of religion unless you're kinda brown! (though really, europes historically never been very religiously tolerant)).

One of the best things about democracy is that it takes a long time. Over time the passing fears of the population can diminish, or shift onto some new scary thing. There was far greater support for the banning of communist parties in many places around the world, but actually doing so took a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bla_Ze wrote:One of the reason some european countries are superior developed according to me, is its view on religion.
Religious is something private, and europeans, at least scandinavians think you should keep it private.

Yes, so when a person privately chooses their personal attire for the day based on their private beliefs, then the rest of society should privately go about letting them privately wear whatever clothes they want.

I give you...the quote within a quote!

Bartlet tells his wife Abbey: “Max Weber said that politics is ‘the slow boring of hard boards. And anyone who seeks to do it must risk his own soul.’ […] It means that change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it. You’re trying to move mountains. It takes lifetimes”

I don't care what they wear in their homes, or even the wearing of head scarves/skull caps/ crucifixes/ orange, flowing robes with shaved head except for pony tail.

But being able to drive a car and enter shops/airports/use public transport with only eyes exposed is beyond a joke.

If I tried to go shopping dressed in a black trenchcoat, gloves and a balaclava I have a suspicion the police will be called.

But being able to drive a car and enter shops/airports/use public transport with only eyes exposed is beyond a joke.

Why?

If I tried to go shopping dressed in a black trenchcoat, gloves and a balaclava I have a suspicion the police will be called.

Because those articles of clothing have a history of use as a method for avoiding identification while committing crimes, not because of any inherent value of the clothing itself.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I don't care what they wear in their homes, or even the wearing of head scarves/skull caps/ crucifixes/ orange, flowing robes with shaved head except for pony tail.

But being able to drive a car and enter shops/airports/use public transport with only eyes exposed is beyond a joke.

When it comes to driving it depends on the type. There's the ones that have a full vision slit that wouldn't impede sight at all, I don't think they'd be a problem but I haven't worn a burka so I couldn't say for sure. The one with a thatched material across the vision slit must restrict vision, so it'd be reasonable to ban that while driving.

I do agree that licences and passports need to show the face, and that an officer needs to be able to see the face. This could be easily managed at customs, with a designated woman able to view the face, but I'm not sure how you'd solve it at a traffic stop. Fortunately* the level of sexism inherent in families requiring the burka means the women rarely drive anyway.

But all that has nothing to do with a complete bad on burkas.

If I tried to go shopping dressed in a black trenchcoat, gloves and a balaclava I have a suspicion the police will be called.

Because a wide number of crimes have been committed wearing outfits exactly like that. On the other hand the burka has been used no more than a handful of times, and in each case its been for quickly exiting a car, performing a hold up and getting back in the car, which a public ban on shopping centres and the like wouldn't affect at all. You've no doubt seen people walking around in those things? They're not exactly practical for running away.


*Well, not really fortunately - you know what I mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I give you...the quote within a quote!

Bartlet tells his wife Abbey: “Max Weber said that politics is ‘the slow boring of hard boards. And anyone who seeks to do it must risk his own soul.’ […] It means that change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it. You’re trying to move mountains. It takes lifetimes”

I like that, although I don't know the show well enough to know if they considered such a thing good or bad. It's a mixed blessing in a lot of ways, needed reform can be painfully slow at times but on the other hand the whims of a fickle populace are moderated.

I also like that its now a quote within a quote within a quote.

ShumaGorath wrote:

We got over our muslim hysteria around 2006, yours is just starting and has seemingly weaker ground for it's base.

You've even got one as president !

*ducks and covers*

Hey Bla-ze dont be taking all the kudos, last time i checked the British were just after you guys on the common sense o meter (is aware that religion is irrational and evolution is so well supported it cannot be doubted) and tragically for the 40% of Americans that went to a proper school they are just next to Turkey. :-) Oh and Shuma, you guys have 'got over it' huh? Really? :-) On topic, while i am usually a libertarian with regards to social activity and dislike governments banning pretty much anything, we all know how i feel about Islam, the tip of a very nasty spear of mono-theistic dogmas. So even though it leaves a slight distaste in my mouth, i feel that anything that annoys the followers of that ridiculous homophobic misogynistic desert fairy story is a good thing to me.

Locking thread for broad brush anti-religion statements.