SPCR
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/

Banning Disguises In Public
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=35862
Page 2 of 3

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm

This is the kind of thing that winds up a lot of people in the UK... inequality.

BA is not a government organisation, but most big companies cant be seen to discriminate minorities, but they can and will discriminate the majority.

Many people will argue that it is a religous symbol, and thats allowed, but it can also be regarded as jewellery.

Likewise Turbans, and headscarves can be regarded as a non-uniform items of clothing, and as such should also be banned, or they should all be allowed, either way this is a simple case of inequality, (banning would be ideal, as the are advertising a "mythological anthropomorphic personification", and advertising something that is irrelevant to your work is a SIN).

Personally I think that ALL religous symbols and dress should be banned for all schoolchildren while at scoool (3ish - 16), this would help to alleviate the brainwashing that religous people force on their kids when not at school.

All religions should be taught to schoolchildren (10 munites per religion), by a Pastafarian, as that person will be totally unbiased to all religions. :lol:


Andy

Author:  nici [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

I read the BA story aerlier today.. And IMO it's competely irrelevant if a cross is a religious symbol or not, it's still jewellery.

If the definiton of jewellery is "an adornment (as a bracelet or ring or necklace) made of precious metals and set with gems (or imitation gems)", and the definition of "precious metal" is "any of the less common and valuable metals often used to make coins or jewelry" then it is jewellery in most cases. That womans cross is most likely silver, so it's jewellery, and thus not allowed in sight with a uniform. She is allowed to wear it under the uniform, and she was offered a job where she could wear it in plain sight. Not complicated. Now move along :lol:

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

I totally agree with you Nici, however, a Turban and headscarf are items of clothing, but BA has decided that those items of clothing ARE allowed alongside the uniform.

It just doesnt seem right to ban Jewellery but not additional items of clothing.!!!

What would happen if she turned up in a huge bright pink hat with loads of feathers sticking out of the top of it.??? Its obviously against the rules, and is not a religous item so its not allowed, and quire rightly so.

But what would happen if she wore a huge wodden cross attached with string.??? Its not jewellery, but it is religous, would that be allowed.........I doubt it.


Andy

Author:  vertigo [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 

They won't go against Muslims. I don't know why it is, but this seems to be a common sentiment in the UK. Christians are out of favour, Muslims are in.

Author:  Devonavar [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:10 am ]
Post subject: 

I'm sorry, while I can see that banning the burqa might be good for security; I can't take seriously your suggestion that a law banning face coverings will be good for security.

Yes, the effect of the law is to ban the burqa, but I'm sure that, if put into effect, those affects would simply adopt clothing that blocks slightly less of their face, or will simply stay home entirely.

Besides, I'm sure you will agree that it's not the burqa-wearing women that are a security problem. You've made it clear that what you fear is imposters using the religious protection offered by the burqa.

Your real problem is a cultural one: We should not be treating people differently on the basis of the clothing they wear. In other words, burqa wearing women (and men) should not be exempt from certain laws simply by virtue of wearing religious clothing. I completely agree with this sentiment. Those who wear burqas should not be shirking requests from police to revleal their faces is justified bearing in mind that such a request will be perceived as violation of personal privacy. It should be treated like a strip search, and the dignity and privacy of the burqa wearer should be respected. Likewise, security guards should have the right to refuse entry to anyone who is not recognizable.

Does implementing a law that bans the burqa address these concerns? I suppose it does in a round-about way; remove the burqas and you remove the possibility that people will need to tread carefully around those wearing them. I just don't see that the solution need go this far. In most circumstances, there is no issue with people wearing burqas in the street; the problem is very, very specific to cases where the burqa obstructs existing security laws.

So, in my opinion, the solution should simply be a clarification that protection of religious freedom (and other freedoms, such as the right to wear a motorcycle helmet with a dark visor) does not grant an exemption to existing law. If existing law is unfairly discriminatory, then that criticism can be made and pressure can be made to change said law. I'm sure our famously tolerant society should be able to accommodate changes that genuinely remove discrimination. Legislation is not what is necessary here. Communication is.

If this really is a legitimate problem (and given the number of women who wear burqas in the Netherlands, I have my doubts), the appropriate course of action is to tell the muslim community how the burqa obstructs existing law and make it clear that they will be expected to comply with Dutch law when applicable, and how this will affect burqa wearers. There is room for some debate here, but if the Muslim community resists (I can't see that they would resist that hard — they're quite aware of how they're perceived, and should welcome a chance to change that image) this may just amount to saying (in the right words) that their choice to wear a burqa entails a certain amount of incovenience and compromise on their part in order to fit into Dutch society.

What is important is that this needs to come across as "This is what it means to live in Holland" or "this is the minimum amount of integration that we expect of you" rather than "We don't trust you, so we're going to impose something on you". This is why I oppose the law so strongly. The law will certainly be perceived as a hostile one by Muslims, and rightly so: It represents a change in Dutch society that will specifically make their life more difficult. Why not instead hold them to a standard that does not single them out? In other words, tell them they are expected to respect the same security procedures (i.e. maintain a certain standard of identifiability in certain places) that regular Dutch citizens must comply with — or not participate in that particular part of Dutch society.

This is all about communication and integration. If you want Muslims to integrate, you need to talk to them and make them feel a welcome part of society. Ignoring them and imposing unfair laws on them will not help them integrate; it will alienate them.

What I have outlined above is not so far from what the law would do. The result should be the same: People wearing Burqas should bow to the powers that be. The difference is in how the result is achieved. I believe the maxim "It's the journey, not the destination that counts" applies here. Fostering friendship requires reaching out; it cannot be enforced.

Author:  andyb [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Devon you are quite right on many of those points (its nice to debate and not argue:)).

You pointed out that its a cultural problem and we should not be treating people differently because of what they wear............... how and why.

Everyone gets treated differently because of what they wear, what the look like, their mannerisms, what they say, how they treat people. This is simple human nature, and if people WANT to be treated differently then they dress differently to other people (goths, and 1970's punks for example).

However, although Goths, and Punks will be stared at in the street, we can see their faces, and know that they are just being rebelious kids (usually), however Burkha/Veil, wearers are outcasting themselves.

If wearing a Burkha/Veil is because they want to be treated differently then they have got what they want. If they want to prove a point, then the point has been proven, but this is going to get worse when (not if) the masses decide that enough is enough.

It still comes back to common decency, integration, communication, and security.

If we ignore the security aspect, which has been discussed and uniformally agreed that it can be used as the title describes "a disguise" by anyone we still have the other points.

Common decency, most people think that Burkhas and Veils are just plain rude, and lots of women think that they are sexist.

Integration will not happen if those people dont WANT to integrate, likewise other people will not allow them to integrate because Burkha wearers have not taken the first step, again Common Decency.

Communication, has been proven without doubt as a problem, body language does not exist when youcant see the body, facial expressions are hidden, all we can hear is a voice, this is as un-intimate as using the phone. Devon, you mentioned communication as the way forward, how can this happen when communication is near paralysed because Burkha/veil wearers wont take them off, this is stunting integration.

As someone else pointed out, the minority MUST take the first step towards being part of the greater community, if they dont and they stay at home then I dont really want to have them as part of the community.


Andy

Author:  Erssa [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Devonavar wrote:
Those who wear burqas should not be shirking requests from police to revleal their faces is justified bearing in mind that such a request will be perceived as violation of personal privacy.
You believe they would stay at home, if they were not allowed to wear burqas, do you expect they will allow themselves to be humiliated with a strip searches? What if they resist? Should they be consider then as possible criminals in disguise? What kind of law would you use to allow the strip search? Wouldn't the strip search imply they have something to hide?
Quote:
This is all about communication and integration. If you want Muslims to integrate, you need totalk to them and make them feel a welcome part of society. Ignoring them and imposing unfair laws on them will not help them integrate; it will alienate them.
Look now, Europeans want nothing more then for them to integrate. We have tried communicating, we have welcomed them with open arms and made everything in our power to make them feel welcomed. It has failed, but not because of our lack of effort. Those who fail to integrate do not want to be part of the European community. They see us as corrupt filthy infidels. Those who wear burqas are not the the moderate muslims willing to integrate. The ones wearing burqa are following strick islamic code. You can reason with them just as easily as you can reason with a Jihad suicide bomber. They feel their moral standards are so much above ours, that they won't lower themselves by engaging in dialogue with us. French people gain nothing from the burning suburbs and cars in France. Swedish people gain nothing from the annual increase of 20% in rapes every year. We gain nothing by the insane income transfers we give to them. We gain nothing from the unsafetyness. So why do you think would we deliberately alienate friendly muslims? The failure in communication is not our fault.

Quote:
What I have outlined above is not so far from what the law would do. The result should be the same: People wearing Burqas should bow to the powers that be. The difference is in how the result is achieved. I believe the maxim "It's the journey, not the destination that counts" applies here. Fostering friendship requires reaching out; it cannot be enforced.
You have the same false premise that most of the left wing socialist have had in Europe for a long time. You seem to think, that when a muslim comes to Europe he suddenly adopts European values. Remember these people come from countries where there are no democracies, where things are ruled by force, where women have no rights, were mutilation of children is a normal habit, where compromising is a sign of weakness instead of a noble gesture. They don't shake these habits on the border as they enter the country.

Not all refugees are innocent. When tides of war shift in Somalia the former oppressors and war criminals are suddenly the ones in danger, so they flee the country. It's not a suprise that they continue their violent habits in their new countries. And this is not restricted to just Somalia. It is a hard fact seen in crime statistics of every European country. You can even check it some videos of it from youtube. Search for "happy slapping" and you see the nice new tradition that immigrants have brought. It involves beating, raping or sometimes even murdering innocent unsuspecting people, video taping it and posting it in the internet...

It's it true that the radical muslims are a minority, but the moderate group, that is shown in television condemning terrorist attacks is even smaller minority then the radicals.

Things are going the change quiet alot in the near future here in Europe. Sweden and Denmark already have right wing governments. Right wing is winning elections all over Europe and will continue to win in the future. Denmark already passed new immigration laws and as a result Rikke Hvilshøjs, minister for Refugees, Immigrants and Integration, car was set on fire, while inside her garage. The car and side of the house burned. This is how the islamists "communicate", I can tell you that this is not part of the nordic traditions.

Long story short... We have been exhausted all other options, so we are left with no other choise other then to pass these silly laws.

Author:  Mar. [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Big Pimp Daddy wrote:
nici wrote:
Life is risky and unpredictable, so it must be EVIL!

Don't let Bush hear you say that or he'll start "the war on Life".


I like that idea, thin out the 7 billion.

Author:  Mar. [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:35 am ]
Post subject: 

So what I'm getting out of this is, they want wide-brimmed hats, silly noses, makeup, Islam, Hallowe'en, theatre, and movies to be illegal?

Author:  andyb [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Mar, I hope that was a joke of some sort.


Andy

Author:  Reachable [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 

It's worthwhile when all the viewpoints on a particular issue are brought forth, as is happening here.

But things have to be defined very carefully. Burqa wearing is not a religious symbol issue but more accurately a modesty issue. Asking somebody who's worn one of those all her life to cease doing so would be like asking most women to run around topless. And then (to put things on a continuum) there are those cultures (if they still exist) where it's normal for women to be topless, and in such places they would think "civilized" women hopelessly modest and repressed. But everybody has some point at which they'd feel violated.

Devonavar put things very eloquently, but I'll be more crude and specific. If you're to have a driver's license photo taken of yourself, you simply gotta remove your face-covering, otherwise the exercise is pointless. You might as well have a paper bag over your head. Similarly, when your car is pulled over and you're asked for your license -- you gotta reveal your face then. If you can't accomodate to these procedures then you'll have to forego the priviledge of getting a license and driving. The laws are ostensibly for everyone's protection and the common good.

Author:  Erssa [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Reachable wrote:
But things have to be defined very carefully. Burqa wearing is not a religious symbol issue but more accurately a modesty issue. Asking somebody who's worn one of those all her life to cease doing so would be like asking most women to run around topless.
No it's not. It's face we are talking about, not tits. Nothing is asked from them that is not expected from everyone else.

Quote:
And then (to put things on a continuum) there are those cultures (if they still exist) where it's normal for women to be topless, and in such places they would think "civilized" women hopelessly modest and repressed. But everybody has some point at which they'd feel violated.
Yeah it's funny that naturalists are not allowed to walk naked in schools, court rooms or streets, why is that? Why are there no loud protests fighting for the their right to be naked, because it's part of their culture? Is walking in the street naked more evil (more dangerous) then the opposite of naked, burqa? Is the culture and value of naturalists of lesser value then muslims? The answer is yes. This year in France, they banned nudity on beaches near Paris, because they were afraid of upsetting the muslims... Not only they banned nudity, they also banned thongs. Double standards, anyone? :roll:

Author:  nici [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Our laws are basically based on religion, just like the muslims, and most other cultures. I am not a religious person, but our laws are still pretty much based on what the bible says is correct and what is not. Some might think showing a little of your face or ankles similar to me thinking about walking around the city with my balls for all to see, i really don't want to do that.

Nudity seems to be a big "problem" now anyway, im glad its not there yet here in Finland, but banning tits from TV but allowing mad violence? How on earth can some boobies on tv do anything negative? People should just be happy when they see boobies :P

But yes, in my opinion if someone wants to live in our culture, they should accept that we don't walk around wth our faces covered. And learn the damn language, how on earth am i supposed to communicate with someone who i don't understand? I think it should be enough if i speak four different languages. If i moved abroad, i would not go around talking Finnish or Swedish all the time and expecting people to learn it.

I managed to go off topic again.

Author:  Erssa [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

nici wrote:
But yes, in my opinion if someone wants to live in our culture, they should accept that we don't walk around wth our faces covered. And learn the damn language, how on earth am i supposed to communicate with someone who i don't understand?
Not to mention how much it helps to communicate, when you can see someones facial expressions. Especially when you don't share a language.

Author:  nici [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I can imagine it would feel pretty disturbing talking to someone who i can't see, facial expressions and body language are important even though you understand most of it only subconciously.

Author:  andyb [ Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Sacked at long last.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6179842.stm


Andy

Author:  Mar. [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 

andyb wrote:
Mar, I hope that was a joke of some sort.


Mar. wrote:
Big Pimp Daddy wrote:
nici wrote:
Life is risky and unpredictable, so it must be EVIL!

Don't let Bush hear you say that or he'll start "the war on Life".


I like that idea, thin out the 7 billion.


That was a (bad) joke at the expense of the doomers.

Mar. wrote:
So what I'm getting out of this is, they want wide-brimmed hats, silly noses, makeup, Islam, Hallowe'en, theatre, and movies to be illegal?


That was a joke at the expense of the people responsible for this insane legislation.

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:58 am ]
Post subject: 

:) glad it was a joke.

I wouldnt be bothered if Wide-Brimmed Hats, Silly Noses, and Theatre were all banned :wink:

The problem will come if we ban, Makeup, Islam, Hallowe'en and Movies.

Makeup is very necessary, if makeup was banned you would see a lot more ugly people.

Islam is important because if it was banned the Christians would probably start to row with the Jews (again).

If Hallowe'en was banned then their would be no excuse to poison children on the October 31st.

If movies were banned then more people would play computer games and Jack (Nutjob) Thompson would have a field day.

I take it that you dissagree with this legislation :wink:


Andy

Author:  qviri [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:02 am ]
Post subject: 

andyb wrote:
Makeup is very necessary, if makeup was banned you would see a lot more ugly people.


How's that different from banning burqas? According to your words, people wearing make-up feel they are ugly, are uncomfortable without it and want to alter the way the world sees them. People wearing burqas feel uncomfortable without it and want to alter the way the world sees them, as well.

Author:  Mar. [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:48 am ]
Post subject: 

andyb wrote:
I take it that you dissagree with this legislation :wink:


That's a definite yes.

qviri wrote:
andyb wrote:
Makeup is very necessary, if makeup was banned you would see a lot more ugly people.


How's that different from banning burqas? According to your words, people wearing make-up feel they are ugly, are uncomfortable without it and want to alter the way the world sees them. People wearing burqas feel uncomfortable without it and want to alter the way the world sees them, as well.


Who cares if they "feel" ugly? I care about having to see more ugly people.

Author:  qviri [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 

Mar. wrote:
I care about having to see more ugly people.


Who defines what's "ugly"?

Author:  Mar. [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:54 am ]
Post subject: 

qviri wrote:
Mar. wrote:
I care about having to see more ugly people.


Who defines what's "ugly"?


Me, you, whoever has to see these newly naked-faced individuals.

Author:  qviri [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:55 am ]
Post subject: 

That works.

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

ROTFPMWL :P

Makeup can only be considered the same as a Burqha in one way, and its plain funny.

Makeup is there to make people look more attractive.
So I guess that Burqhas are there for the same reason :lol:

Thanks everyone I had never seen Burqha wearers like that before, I am now changing my opinion.

DONT BAN BURQHAS IN PUBLIC, THEY ARE THEIR FOR OUR OWN GOOD :P


Andy

Author:  Tzupy [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

IMHO Muslim women should wear the Burqha because 99% of them are ugly. :roll:
People of Londinium should worry more about the mole-people from Bucharest sewers moving to their sewers, after we join the EU, just 34 days remaining. :lol:
If my post offended someone, I apologize: today I had to supervise the brewing and taste my mother's hooch, which is 72 proof (and illegal in the EU). :P

Author:  Mar. [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

On that... What's happening with the pound sterling? You guys switching over to the Euro or keeping your own currency? Or both?

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tzupy, what exactly is your mothers "Hooch" made of any why is it illegal.???

Mar, I hope the £ will be around forever, there is a very mixed feeling about using the Euro in the UK, and we have never said that we will use it unless it suits us.

Having stayed out of the Euro when most other countries joined, many of us were very happy, as loads of countries had serious financial problems, the majority were sorted out with 12 months, but the value of the Euro has barely changed since its introduction compared to the £ and as such there is still no compelling reason to change to the euro.

From a purely financial viewpoint it would actually have made more sense to use the US$ instead of the Euro, as we have more financial dealings with the US than the whole of Europe, (but only from a financial standpoint, things change when we talk about goods).

Using the euro instead of the £ would give the UK far less fredom, and would bring our country a step closer to "Euroland" with a central government. Not a single country in Europe (except France) wants one government (andthe French only want this because they miss Napolean who wasnt French anyway).

Every government has its own freedom to do whats best for every country. this would be like the US removing the rights of each State, and giving every State the same set of rules, and no self control. Chaos would ensue, and the Americans have a lot of guns :lol:

Anyway, the £ has been remarkably strong against the US$ and the Euro for a very long time, and that doesnt look like its going to change, especially when the US$ looks like its going down the pan.

The £ is currenty worh $1.93 (nice time to go on holiday to the US.
The £ is currenty worh E1.47 (it was worth about the same 4 years ago).


Andy

Author:  qviri [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

andyb wrote:
the French only want this because they miss Napolean who wasnt French anyway).


And even his name wasn't Napolean anyway.

Author:  andyb [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

:P Well spotted.

"He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte (in Corsican, Nabolione or Nabulione) in the town of Ajaccio on Corsica"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napolean


Andy

Author:  Tzupy [ Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:59 am ]
Post subject: 

My mother's hooch (as called by my partners in the UK, they really liked it!) is locally called palinka.
It's a double refined alcohol, starting from wild cherries, or plums, or grapes and honey - that's my mother's specific, since she is a beekeeper.
I'm not sure if it's illegal, but since the EU wants to ban the production of alcohols over 40 proof, I suppose it is.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/