new Muslim youth club just opened in Newcastle...

[Prufrock]

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.

Celebrities hide their faces, hungover people hide their faces. What if I see somebody walking down the road who I can't be bothered talking to? Why don't you have to put a picture of yourself next to your posts on here? Why hasn't everyone rushed out to buy and use video phones? We have the right to keep secrets. I was mugged a few months ago by someone who covered their face with a scarf. Are we going to ban scarves now? If somebody wants to cover their face to commit a crime they will. I find the idea there are men dressing up in Burkhas to hide their identities fecking hilarious. Why, when there are so many other ways! Balaclavas, scarves, hats, hoods, sunglasses. It's not about seeing peoples faces, it's that people don't like that it's different. If it was just about 'security' people would only be arguing that they should have to take them off at airline security and at the bank, which they may have to, and if they don't then I could be persuaded on that. But no, it's always a total ban. We shouldn't be banning items of bloody clothing. Sign of a good society is fewer laws, not more.

[Hoboh]

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.

Celebrities hide their faces, hungover people hide their faces. What if I see somebody walking down the road who I can't be bothered talking to? Why don't you have to put a picture of yourself next to your posts on here? Why hasn't everyone rushed out to buy and use video phones? We have the right to keep secrets. I was mugged a few months ago by someone who covered their face with a scarf. Are we going to ban scarves now? If somebody wants to cover their face to commit a crime they will. I find the idea there are men dressing up in Burkhas to hide their identities fecking hilarious. Why, when there are so many other ways! Balaclavas, scarves, hats, hoods, sunglasses. It's not about seeing peoples faces, it's that people don't like that it's different. If it was just about 'security' people would only be arguing that they should have to take them off at airline security and at the bank, which they may have to, and if they don't then I could be persuaded on that. But no, it's always a total ban. We shouldn't be banning items of bloody clothing. Sign of a good society is fewer laws, not more.

You've got a nerve!!! decrying me with about 2 laws then! hypocyte

[boltonboris]

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.

Hmm.. So you're saying cloaks were banned because of national security? Which basically means, burkas are being banned because the people under them could well be terrorists? Hey, I could be a terrorist. I don't wear a burka, I sometimes wear a big duffel coat though, I could conceal anything under that. Also, I sometimes wear a balaclava in winter... Bloody hell, I better stop going out, I'll end up getting shot at a train station by some xenophonic figure of 'authority'!

[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...

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.

of course we don't. but your post suggested that our culture is about face-to-face communication. It absolutely isn't. mobile phones - texting - the internet - online shopping - phone sex! - our culture is moving RAPIDLY to becoming the opposite.

(I have seen many many many people faced with the option of talking to the person they are physically with or texting someone miles away - and they choose the latter...)

[thebish]

genuine question - cos I don't know.

can anyone tell me what kind of nefarious activity the french (or the spanish) ban is designed to prevent?

[thebish]

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? .

when did this happen, Tango? and is it still in force? I can find no reference to such a banning anywhere - it sounds interesting....

[Lord Kangana]

genuine question - cos I don't know.

can anyone tell me what kind of nefarious activity the french (or the spanish) ban is designed to prevent?

I'd imagine you're caught in a bit of a cleft stick here bish. Having consulted the oracle on this matter, it is not religious symbolism. However, its use has historically been as a tool of oppression. This is akin to socialists defending Stalin, they see is it as their natural position, when in fact it isn't.

So lets turn this round, are you saying you favour the Burkha and all that it stands for?

[thebish]

genuine question - cos I don't know.

can anyone tell me what kind of nefarious activity the french (or the spanish) ban is designed to prevent?

I'd imagine you're caught in a bit of a cleft stick here bish. Having consulted the oracle on this matter, it is not religious symbolism. However, its use has historically been as a tool of oppression. This is akin to socialists defending Stalin, they see is it as their natural position, when in fact it isn't.

So lets turn this round, are you saying you favour the Burkha and all that it stands for?

I have no fixed opinion on the matter - but I think i would have to hear a very good reason for a nation banning it to persuade me that is the right course of action.

I am opposed to the burqah if it is imposed upon women by their husbands or fathers
I am in favour of the burqah if it is voluntarily worn by women for whatever reason

a ban on burqahs by a state would then restrict the ordinary freedoms of the latter group (and I know two women who wear the full burqah out of choice - believe me - in their houses they "wear the trousers"! - they are both formidable and unoppressed women.)

If the burqah is being banned because it oppresses women - then that sounds noble - but surely it would come a long way down a list of state legislation that might make women less oppressed - equal pay for one thing.

I do not believe that this is primarily for the French an issue of wimmins lib - I think it is an irrational anti-muslim backlash. I am opposed to anti-muslim backlashes.


my question remains though....

what nefarious activities do the french think this will prevent?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

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.

Hmm.. So you're saying cloaks were banned because of national security? Which basically means, burkas are being banned because the people under them could well be terrorists? Hey, I could be a terrorist. I don't wear a burka, I sometimes wear a big duffel coat though, I could conceal anything under that. Also, I sometimes wear a balaclava in winter... Bloody hell, I better stop going out, I'll end up getting shot at a train station by some xenophonic figure of 'authority'!

If you turn out in a duffel coat and a balaclava then you deserve summary execution by the fashion police.

NEXT!!

[Lord Kangana]

Oppression of women?

You seem to have overlooked that one. Perhaps one of the first steps towards gender equality (or just even one of the steps) is to stop the use of things like 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? .

when did this happen, Tango? and is it still in force? I can find no reference to such a banning anywhere - it sounds interesting....

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

[thebish]

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? .

when did this happen, Tango? and is it still in force? I can find no reference to such a banning anywhere - it sounds interesting....

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

i'm not doubting you, you're very defensive these days... but - if spain are banning the burqah - why not the cloak?

(I have a rather nifty cape myself...)

[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? .

when did this happen, Tango? and is it still in force? I can find no reference to such a banning anywhere - it sounds interesting....

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

i'm not doubting you, you're very defensive these days... but - if spain are banning the burqah - why not the cloak?

(I have a rather nifty cape myself...)

So, answering your question is " very defensive"? Man, you're something else.

[thebish]

Oppression of women?

You seem to have overlooked that one. Perhaps one of the first steps towards gender equality (or just even one of the steps) is to stop the use of things like this.

I'm not sure what I have overlooked....

I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that burqah wearing in france is a matter of women being oppressed. or do you know of some?

my worry is that a good deal of it is NOT about oppression of women - in fact, to their way of thinking, quite the opposite.

where the burqah IS a tool for oppressing women - then - yes, I oppose that oppression. But does that translate into a national ban? I don't think that's a necessary corollary.

If a french woman is forces to wear the burqah by her oppressive husband. and the state bans the wearing of burqas in public... use your imagination - what do you think the impact on that woman might be?

my guess is - that she would then simply lose her freedom to move outside the house and be confined indoors by her (still) oppressive husband - and the legislation has thus succeeded in making her lot worse rather than better.

unless you are suggesting that that state ban would teach that husband the error of his ways? are you really suggesting that?


but - you're avoiding the point - because this ban is nothing to do with wimmins lib - that is a feeble fig-leaf for some populist anti-muslim bear-baiting.

[CAPSLOCK]

I am in favour of the burqah if it is voluntarily worn by women for whatever reason

hmmm

now that is a can of worms

[Lord Kangana]

In your opinion.

As it stands, we're veering into not all jews died in the holocaust/banning nazi paraphenalia is counterproductive/some of my best friends are asian territory. If you're in favour of the burkha, you'll be a bit put out. If you're forced to wear it, well you can't be.

On balance, I know which imperfect world I'd prefer to live in. And yes, many Muslim women's groups back the banning of burkhas. Again, I know on balance on which side of the imperfect argument I sit.

[thebish]

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

Actually - I have looked - and now I am suspecting your use of the word "ban" is a little bit of an exaggeration.

are you referring to the Marquis of Esquilache wanting to substitute long capes for shorter ones and big hats for small ones? and yet as soon as he tried to enforce it among the general public (as opposed to just royal functionaries) there were mass riots and much rampant violence - and (to cut a long story short) King Charles dismissed the ban and dismissed the Marquis of Esquilache?

so - in reality - a ban was attempted - but was never actually properly imposed because the people wouldn't have it. there was never a Spain-wide ban on cloaks.

[thebish]

In your opinion.

As it stands, we're veering into not all jews died in the holocaust/banning nazi paraphenalia is counterproductive/some of my best friends are asian territory. If you're in favour of the burkha, you'll be a bit put out. If you're forced to wear it, well you can't be.

On balance, I know which imperfect world I'd prefer to live in. And yes, many Muslim women's groups back the banning of burkhas. Again, I know on balance on which side of the imperfect argument I sit.

indeed - in my opinion.

which is why i am asking - beyond all the opinions on here - what exactly ARE the grounds that the french are putting forward for the ban.

lots of things are suggested - but i am genuinely asking what ACTUAL reason the french govt. is giving.

does anyone know?

[Lord Kangana]

In your opinion.

As it stands, we're veering into not all jews died in the holocaust/banning nazi paraphenalia is counterproductive/some of my best friends are asian territory. If you're in favour of the burkha, you'll be a bit put out. If you're forced to wear it, well you can't be.

On balance, I know which imperfect world I'd prefer to live in. And yes, many Muslim women's groups back the banning of burkhas. Again, I know on balance on which side of the imperfect argument I sit.

indeed - in my opinion.

which is why i am asking - beyond all the opinions on here - what exactly ARE the grounds that the french are putting forward for the ban.

lots of things are suggested - but i am genuinely asking what ACTUAL reason the french govt. is giving.

does anyone know?

Direct quote from Sarkozy:

The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issues of a women’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France

.

Lets be clear here, I think he's a moron 90% of the time, but I agree with him on this one.

[Worthy4England]

In your opinion.

As it stands, we're veering into not all jews died in the holocaust/banning nazi paraphenalia is counterproductive/some of my best friends are asian territory. If you're in favour of the burkha, you'll be a bit put out. If you're forced to wear it, well you can't be.

On balance, I know which imperfect world I'd prefer to live in. And yes, many Muslim women's groups back the banning of burkhas. Again, I know on balance on which side of the imperfect argument I sit.

indeed - in my opinion.

which is why i am asking - beyond all the opinions on here - what exactly ARE the grounds that the french are putting forward for the ban.

lots of things are suggested - but i am genuinely asking what ACTUAL reason the french govt. is giving.

does anyone know?

I believe the ground are the oppression of females - as the fine for wearing one is about £125. The fine for making someone wear one is £25,000 and one year in the nick.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for the law, saying the full veil "hurts the dignity of women, and is not acceptable in French society".

The vote was 336 for and 1 against, although the Socialist parties (204 votes) refused to vote.