Immigration Ban the burka?

I believe burka should be banned in Europe, not for religious reasons, but because I am offended as a woman when I see other women being forced to wear it.
 
Totally in favour of the ban. Citizens aren't supposed to hide their face in public, unless they are planning to rob a bank, seek to escape from the police, or need to hide for other unlawful reasons.
 
The burka should be banned in Europe. It is a symbol of Muslim female servitude and cuts at the essence of the Western corpus of values, indeed, basic human values anywhere in the world.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with your posts Maciamo and Cambria Red.

I'm very pleased that Belgians voted against the burka and I hope other countries follow this example, including mine.
 
The muslim population of Belgium is only about 4%. Are there not more important things that Belgian government could be spending their time on?

"Of the 500,000 Muslims living in Belgium – with big populations in Brussels and Antwerp – very few women wear the full veil, and there has been little public debate about the need to ban it."

So of that 500,000 how many are women, and how many of those women actually wear the full veil, the number must be pretty small.

"...local authorities in Belgium already have the power to ban the burqa and niqab in public places."

If this is the case why do the goverment feel the need to impose a ban on such a minority subject?

While Bacquelaine admitted there was little problem with full facial covering among Muslims in Belgium, he argued for a preemptive move, saying: "We have to act as of today to avoid [its] development."

To avoid development? Lets be honest this is clearly alot of nonsense created by some irrational fear of Isalm sweeping over Europe in some right wing fantasy.

There was no real need to legislate nationaly, this is mearly a backlast from the right wing fear mongers.
 
edao said:
The muslim population of Belgium is only about 4%. Are there not more important things that Belgian government could be spending their time on?

"Of the 500,000 Muslims living in Belgium – with big populations in Brussels and Antwerp – very few women wear the full veil, and there has been little public debate about the need to ban it."

So of that 500,000 how many are women, and how many of those women actually wear the full veil, the number must be pretty small.

"...local authorities in Belgium already have the power to ban the burqa and niqab in public places."

If this is the case why do the goverment feel the need to impose a ban on such a minority subject?

While Bacquelaine admitted there was little problem with full facial covering among Muslims in Belgium, he argued for a preemptive move, saying: "We have to act as of today to avoid [its] development."

To avoid development? Lets be honest this is clearly alot of nonsense created by some irrational fear of Isalm sweeping over Europe in some right wing fantasy.

There was no real need to legislate nationaly, this is mearly a backlast from the right wing fear mongers.
Click to expand...
Have you read Maciamo's post ? It's illegal to hide the face in public
 
Wilhelm said:
Have you read Maciamo's post ? It's illegal to hide the face in public
Click to expand...

Have you read mine?

I agree completely that hiding your face in work or social conditions isn't acceptable. I am mearly making the point that this is a minorty problem, in which the local authorities already have the power to legislate for, so there was no actualy need for the government to waste time creating a national ban.

So if this isn't a big problem in Belgium and there are already powers in place to allow local authorities to ban the covering of the face, (if it did become a problem) why now create a new law? Is it in any way rational, no.

The real reason for the new law is intolerance based on irrational fear.
 
When it comes to Islam in Europe, most native European fears are hardly irrational.
 
Cambria Red said:
When it comes to Islam in Europe, most native European fears are hardly irrational.
Click to expand...

"Major lethal attacks on civilians in Europe credited to Islamic terrorism include the 11 March 2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, where 191 people were killed and 2,050 wounded, and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, also of public transport, which killed 52 commuters and injured 700. According to EU Terrorism Report there were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006, but only one, the foiled suitcase bomb plot in Germany, was related to Islamist terror."

Out of 500 acts of terrorism in the EU in 2006, only one was realted to Islam.

Yet in that same year thousands lost their lives in road deaths, see the figures for yourself below. If the statistic on terrorism are enough to get you scared, then you must be terrified of crossing the road or stepping into a car. The media will paint whatever picture sells papers, the fact is scenes of a bombing in a captial city will provoke emotional reactions from people, inturn they make irrational judgments.


http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Road deaths in Europe.pdf

Fact is the Belgians with along with the rest of the EU would be better of worrying about real issues that have an impact on people lives and stop allowing their misplaced prejudice to govern policy.
 
Michael Folkesson said:
It's not illegal to hide ones face in public, and I really hope we don't get there.
Click to expand...
So, if someone commits a crime with no face, how will the police identify him ? It's illegal to do that
 
Well, what are you trying to say? That it's illegal to conceal your identity while committing crimes? That's how you do it in Spain? Are you saying that by making it illegal to cover your face you will stave off crime, or stop criminals from covering their faces when committing crimes?

What it seems to be you are saying is that you want Halloween, parades and what not's that are completely harmless to be illegal. If I want to go to a football match with my face painted in colors you want that to be illegal. This is - by following through it to it's full extent - what you are saying. It would be a law that is restricting our rights and freedom.

I find it intriguing that the Muslim Burqa is what would make countries make laws against covering ones face for security measures, when people have been covering their faces when up to shenanigans for centuries. That's what one is saying when one has decided they want to ban it, and grasps for legal reasons.

Banning the Burqa, Niqab or any attributes connected to Islam won't make oppressed women less oppressed. But it will make some Europeans feel like they have done something good. They ones who don't want to wear it and are forced to wear it, will just not be let out. This will not help anyone. It will just increase a conflict that seems to be slowly spiraling.

That there are Muslim men treating their women like crap must be because they are Muslim, so I guess European men beating their women must be because they are Christian.

That women take the back seat most of the time in many countries are not news. We have to work for a change together, but banning the Burqa is of no help at all for the women. It's a symbol act for Europeans to show they don't want to have anything like that in their country. It's not Muslim women that brought this up.
 
People (i.e. women and men) in Halloween, parades or football matches voluntary cover/paint their faces for fun... not due to a sexist/religious imposition.

The comparison you made is simply hilarious.
 
Michael Folkesson said:
Well, what are you trying to say? That it's illegal to conceal your identity while committing crimes?
Click to expand...
No, just being in public with a hidden face is suspicious, because in case you do something illegal, people and/or police can't identify you.

That's how you do it in Spain? Are you saying that by making it illegal to cover your face you will stave off crime, or stop criminals from covering their faces when committing crimes?
Click to expand...
Don't twist everything. It's a question of indetifying somone's face in public, in case he does something illegal. It's not a measure for stoping crime.

What it seems to be you are saying is that you want Halloween, parades and what not's that are completely harmless to be illegal.
Click to expand...
Parades are momentary, not everyday life. Plus, it is voluntary, not forced by religion.

If I want to go to a football match with my face painted in colors you want that to be illegal.
Click to expand...
Painting is not the same as covering your whole face.

This is - by following through it to it's full extent - what you are saying. It would be a law that is restricting our rights and freedom.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary..Wearing something in your face is resctricing rights and freedom for woman

I find it intriguing that the Muslim Burqa is what would make countries make laws against covering ones face for security measures, when people have been covering their faces when up to shenanigans for centuries. That's what one is saying when one has decided they want to ban it, and grasps for legal reasons.
Click to expand...
It's not the only reason for banning the Burka.

Banning the Burqa, Niqab or any attributes connected to Islam won't make oppressed women less oppressed. But it will make some Europeans feel like they have done something good. They ones who don't want to wear it and are forced to wear it, will just not be let out. This will not help anyone. It will just increase a conflict that seems to be slowly spiraling.
Click to expand...
Well, I think immigrants should integrate to our society...

That there are Muslim men treating their women like crap must be because they are Muslim, so I guess European men beating their women must be because they are Christian.~
Click to expand...
No, both are the same beating, but there is a substantial difference : because Islam tells men they can beat a woman..and even how do it :
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm
 
It's a question of indetifying somone's face in public, in case he does something illegal.
Click to expand...
In case? This thinking hasn't driven down crime in London, even though it's the most surveillanced city in the world. We'll see if the unmanned drones they are deploying will solve anything. None of it will stop terrorist attacks, bring down immigration and seldom solve crimes, but it will change Britain. "In case" is a compelling argument for control of internet traffic as well.

Painting is not the same as covering your whole face.
Click to expand...
No it's not. But try to identify these guys from a video or camera snapshot are they to be involved in a beating or hooliganism. → We didn't discuss how one covered the face. One does cover the whole though, and it does hide your identity.

Parades are momentary, not everyday life. Plus, it is voluntary, not forced by religion.
Click to expand...
And if these women would wish to wear the Burqa? It's a little curious to fine the actual wearer of this garment, if they now are forced to wear it.

No, both are the same beating, but there is a substantial difference : because Islam tells men they can beat a woman..and even how do it
Click to expand...
Yes. And you will find the equivalent in the Bible. What is of interest is that this is against the laws in Europe.

Well, I think immigrants should integrate to our society
Click to expand...
I agree. Wearing a Burqa or Niqāb is making it harder to integrate into the society. Is the Belgian law going to make that easier? Is this a step towards more integration?

You want to ban the Burqa or Niqāb because it covers the face, but you don't want to ban covering your face unless it's a Burqa. If I want to rob a bank, a Burqa ban won't stop me, and I kind of wonder how many crimes Burqa dressed people have been involved in to date. Are these moves for Burqa ban driven by Muslim women or to stop Europeans from feeling uncomfortable?

Curiously enough we can cut away a functioning part of babies penises with or without anesthetics - in an age where there can be no consent - without an uproar, for religious reasons, but women can't wear a Burqa or Niqāb if they so wish. Even more curious is that female circumcision has been agitated against but not the male one. It seems clear that this is just another attempt to stave off something we are not familiar with, and that it's a problem when we can see it.

I don't support any form expression of religious clothing, but I don't support laws against it. What everyone seem to assume is that they are all forced to wear it. This makes me think of the "they will welcome us as liberators" argument at the start of the Iraq war.
 
I am glad to amuse you Lynx. Wilhelm claimed it is illegal to cover ones face in public. The issue was a law against covering ones face. Making a law against that would by default include every form of doing so in public. Stay tuned for more amusement. Or maybe you have some sort of actual arguments?
 
So far you have still not explained why do you want to keep the Burka
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 7354 times.

Back
Top