new Muslim youth club just opened in Newcastle...

[Prufrock]

Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals."

You don't go into a bank, supermarket, airport, meeting etc wearing any of them. Even carnivals are for a few hours at most. Hardly a good argument Pru.

What? Oh sorry does what somebody else chooses to wear offend you? Tough shit. People go into all those places apart from maybe meetings wearing crocs and I don't like them, they make me feel uneasy. Can I ban them?

And folk do go into banks wearing ski masks, to rob shit, presumably the reason why they're 'saying' they're introducing this bill, ie. to stop crime.

But no, it definitely doesn't target muslims, even though everything else is exempt.

Sarzhoky is introducing it to win votes from people who don't like muslims.

The day we start banning items of clothing....*shudders*

No, but I'd be more than happy for you to campaign to get a vote through the Houses of Parliament that banned them.

A particular parliament is trying to pass a law it see's fit. If the people are dead against it, they can vote them out at the next election.

It will make it part of their Justice system that you seem so keen on defending elsewhere.

I'm not defending the justice system because it's the justice system. There are loads of things I think are wrong with it. If you think my insistence on the importance of innocence until proven guilty is 'coz it's the law', you miss my point. I think you know this

[TANGODANCER]

Well exactly. My point is people don't need an argument for wearing masks other than because they want to. Like you don't for wearing your cap, and like people don't for wearing those daft big plastic shoes with holes in people call crocs.

That's absurd. Spain banned cloaks years when people wanted to wear them. They also found them useful for carrying swords and knives around unseen, hence the ban. The mask objection is against identity concealing is it not? Caps don't conceal your face, and if you use religion as an excuse for burkha wearers, then you'll have to accuse them of believing in fairies and Father Christmas. Well, that's what you accuse other God believers of isn't it? .

[Lord Kangana]

I believe Islam to be a religion, no?

[TANGODANCER]

I believe Islam to be a religion, no?

? No comprendo ?

[Lord Kangana]

Not a race.

[Prufrock]

Well exactly. My point is people don't need an argument for wearing masks other than because they want to. Like you don't for wearing your cap, and like people don't for wearing those daft big plastic shoes with holes in people call crocs.

That's absurd. Spain banned cloaks years when people wanted to wear them. They also found them useful for carrying swords and knives around unseen, hence the ban. The mask objection is against identity concealing is it not? Caps don't conceal your face, and if you use religion as an excuse for burkha wearers, then you'll have to accuse them of believing in fairies and Father Christmas. Well, that's what you accuse other God believers of isn't it? .

Just because I think what they believe is a load of shite doesn't mean I don't think they should be allowed to believe it, or to show that they believe it. I also think faith should be a private thing and that people should hold their religious believes privately. I don't however believe that they should 'have to'.

As for the burkha I dislike them immensely. I think they are symbolic of an attitude that undermines and oppresses women. I still don't think they should be banned. For those who use that argument, banning the burkha isn't going to change those attitudes. I don't believe the state should be telling people waht they can and cannot wear. This isn't the 16th century Tango, and I'm not sure how swords under cloaks in relevent. Not the best argument I disagree you flat cap doesn't hide your identity. Coat pulled up and baseball cap, or hoody up doesn't cover the face, and that's how these yoofs I keep hearing about get away with stuff. This what if they got on a plane or used someone elses bus pass is shite. 17 year olds every night the country over use other peoples driving licenses to get into clubs, there aren't campaigns for stricter control on bouncers checking people. Folk just feel uneasy, and coz it's different, they want to ban it.

[TANGODANCER]

Not a race.

Ah, I see. Okay.

[Prufrock]

Not a race.

Ah, I see. Okay.

I'm still lost?

[Lord Kangana]

Its perfectly in keeping with existing legislation. Populist or not.

[Prufrock]

Its perfectly in keeping with existing legislation. Populist or not.

No it's not. No piece of 'secular' legislation targets one religion specifically. If they banned the burkha because it was a public show of religion, that would be in keeping with Laicité, and as such the turban and visible crucifix would also be banned. They haven't though, he's decided to try to fellate the far right by targetting Muslims specifically. That is not the point of secularity.

[Lord Kangana]

Any piece of religious garb or symbolism that can be used as a piece of propoganda, by virtue of peer pressure, is fair game. This fits the bill.

[Prufrock]

Any piece of religious garb or symbolism that can be used as a piece of propoganda, by virtue of peer pressure, is fair game. This fits the bill.

But that isn't the argument they are making. They aren't fighting that fight. If they were you could make the same argument for turbans and crucifixes. They aren't included. They are targeting Muslims specifically because it's popular with the far right. To do so with out having to have the argument on turbans but more importantly crucifixes, which satisfy the same conditions, they have dressed it up as some cover your face bollocks. This isn't them implementing secularity, if it were I'd be supporting them, I think the system has its cons, but it also has it's pros, instead it's populist targeting of one specific religion.

[The Ghost of Burnden]

stupid question.....

but where does it mention that in their religious indoctrination (and I would say the same for any religion) that Burkha's have to be worn - I apologise for my ignorance at this stage.

[TANGODANCER]

The only reason for banning burqas in this country that I can accept is disguising identity. I don't really give a dam what anyone else outside of Britain does. This isn't Iran or Afghanistan, it's Britain with British Laws. Religion-wise, anyone should be allowed to wear items that are of their beliefs, publicly or no, as long as it can't be considered an effective disguise. Burqas do disguise identity, of that no question remains. Last night, jokingly, a male character in the TV programme, Rev disguised himself as a woman in a burqa (and whatever else the black robes are called). The point is, that's what it was, a disguise, and, whilst not meant that way, it could easily be used for nefarious purposes. This seems to be the argument of the Law Lords. Where crime and security are concerned, if we don't have some measure of protection against either, why bother having laws at all? Same applies to all "folk can do as they like" attitudes. They can't.

[TANGODANCER]

To do so with out having to have the argument on turbans but more importantly crucifixes, which satisfy the same conditions,

This is crazy. Not wishing to swear, but how the fxck does wearing a turban or having a crucifix around your neck, or even wearing Jewish hats or Yamulkas, satisfy the same conditions as wearing a mask that covers not only your face but your whole head? The others signify religious preferences without any question of concealing identity and differ not from Churches, Synagogues and Mosques in obvious religious support of the worshippers choice. Since you profess atheism Pru, and, to the best of my knowlege burqas aren't banned in Brittain, what exactly are you defending here, the rights of French Muslims or what?

[TANGODANCER]

stupid question.....

but where does it mention that in their religious indoctrination (and I would say the same for any religion) that Burkha's have to be worn - I apologise for my ignorance at this stage.

Some factions of Muslims can't even agree on what exactly the Quran means by covering their "beauties" Some women wear them from choice, some hate them but wear them from presure by Islamists.

[Lord Kangana]

They are one and the same. Hopefully they'll ban them all. Utterly pointless accoutrememnts.

[thebish]

Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals."

You don't go into a bank, supermarket, airport, meeting etc wearing any of them. Even carnivals are for a few hours at most. Hardly a good argument Pru.

securicor people do - all the time.

[thebish]

If anything, in my opinion, it is a sensible move.

We live in a culture where we talk face to face and we clearly see each others faces (eye to eye) - yes there are exceptions (as mentioned) and as Tangodancer has said are those head/face garments worn all the time or in places where face to face talking is required (such as meeting, bank managers etc)

I can't see your face..... actually we live in a culture well used to talking LESS and LESS face to face...

[The Ghost of Burnden]

If anything, in my opinion, it is a sensible move.

We live in a culture where we talk face to face and we clearly see each others faces (eye to eye) - yes there are exceptions (as mentioned) and as Tangodancer has said are those head/face garments worn all the time or in places where face to face talking is required (such as meeting, bank managers etc)

I can't see your face..... actually we live in a culture well used to talking LESS and LESS face to face...

also known as the internet - forums such as this, and getting more and more popular

I get your point on that. But outside the net, when meeting people it is normally face to face, we don't put bags over our heads, or just communicate via mobiles when next to each other.