Well she's not here Gem, so why don't you try exercising some intellectual effort of your own?Quote by: Gem
The law states that sexist and other legislation applies equally to men and women. I can't think of any exceptions. Limiting the freedom of the opposite sex (as when they are prevented from going out alone) almost certainly qualifies as an existing offence - false imprisonment certainly is. If a woman (or a man) barred from leaving her home, I think that qualifies as an offence.I don’t believe that contravenes any legislation, Gem.
If I thought I was wrong, Bacon, do you think I could be arsed to waste my time just plumping your ego?Being wrong all the time?
Well, don't be so arrogant as to conclude that you have won the argument - I for one think you put up a most simplistic case for vitamins. So let's agree to disagree, pending further evidence, rather than claim premature victory as you just did.Which they would most likely have to do anyway. We’ve already been though all this. Dishonestly pretending it didn’t happen isn’t going to change that.
The horizons of your world strike me as being depressingly narrow, Bacon, yet you accuse me of being under-informed. I try to look at the picture in the widest possible context, even if my thinking includes the exotic at times, and is therefore outside the scope of your perceptions. I make no apology for that, and think that you, too, might benefit from expanding your vision a little. (It might even make you a little more approachable, hopefully).Don’t have to. You have to prove that they do, otherwise you can’t prove that the burka deprives women of anything beneficial, in which case you have no grounds for banning it. Refuted.
So your refutation, based as it is on the narrowest medical parameters, cannot be regarded as absolute.
Masks are traditionally associated with highway robbers, burglars and executioners in this country. Anyone wearing one would immediately arouse suspicion outside of a fancy-dress party. As for jackets - do jackets in Scotland cover the face? Hoodies, as we know, are already banned where they may be worn to deliberately fool CCTV cameras and store security monitors.You don’t ban masks; you don’t ban jackets. Refuted.
Not at all - the statistics will be collated eventually - even if they are scarce - (at present) - so again, your refutation is premature, as I hope to prove to you after further research.And again this rests on your claim that Muslim women are coerced into wearing the burka, which we have already established you are unable to provide any proof or numbers for. Refuted.
Sorry if I hit a nerve - you must realise deep down that you are ultimately condoning sexism.Again, allowing =/= supporting. Your lying strawmen are not fooling anyone.
I'll remind you of that should we ever lock horns in an anti-vivisection debate. Talk about moving the goalposts!Uh, no. Animal experimentation ALONE, with psychosis inducing drugs thrown into the mix, is a waste of time, Refuted.
Take the suffragettes of the last century - maybe we shouldn't have listened to their grievances either? Women pioneers for the rights of All women, in other words, whom history now respects.That would be a more reasonable statement if you could explain to me why the opinions of women who don’t wear the burka should be taken as a reflection of the opinions of women who do wear the burka.
So you do admit that you used a gratuitously disparaging epithet towards at least one woman? You also called the ferociously left wing Alibhai Brown a 'reactionary' if memory serves - something she would no doubt regard as deeply insulting - Nice one, Bacon.How can something happen consistently if it’s only happened once?
All you have to do is to quote me advocating arrest for wearing the burka. I have freely admitted that anything too draconian would be ill-advised, and that the procedure would require very tentative and diplomatic handling. Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.Ban = law. Breaking law = arrest. Again, how many times are we going to have to go over this? You can’t just wait until a few posts after an argument is made then pretend it never happened.
Look again at what I actually said - they might be turned away from privately-owned commercial premises of any description, and not have the burka confiscated on the spot. In this case, wearing it on the street would not be affected.They’re turned away to where? If the garment is banned, they can’t be turned away to anywhere.
It is as of now.No problem with private stores banning anything they want. But that’s not what we’re talking about here
You are being disingenuous for effect, right? You MUST know the problems that London stores in particular have with burka-wearing shoplifters - it is notoriously commonplace, faith or no faith. The more expensive the shop, the worse the problem seems to be.Oh right, because I’m sure women who are pious enough to wear the burka are likely to go out shoplifting.
I refer you to the link I supplied earlier, where that French Muslim woman expresses the problem far better than I could. But then, even the best-informed female opinion seems to carry little weight with you these days.How does allowing women to wear burkas constitute turning a blind eye to Jihad?
The burka-wearing mindset is still one of deliberate non-integration. As such, it IS very much against the ethos of a free society and its limitations on sexist practices generally, just like the absence of"choice" when it comes to practice genital mutilation or forced marriages. Banning it doesn't alter that.Not if the people wearing it choose to
Like child abuse - even if it affects only one in a hundred - the apparatus must be in place to combat it. So in a sense, the actual percentage is irrelevant.But you have no figures to say what this percentage is.
It is not for the husband to so decide on her behalf - that's where sexism comes in.Yes, but the principle that some things are attractive to all women and some are not attractive to any women does not.
In this case, therefore, please supply the sort of proof you are always demanding from me. How many women, if any, find the burka aesthetically pleasing? What do these women themselves think? Good luck in your search.Something can be aesthetically attractive without being sexually attractive.
The burka is designed to repel - that's the bottom line.Different strokes.
Absolute nonsense - how can you argue such a thing? Your direct personal involvement in a culture, and your immersion in it, is the best possible qualification to criticise that culture, surely?No, but you certainly cease to see it from the point of view of those who are not rallying against the culture.
That's just naive. Even if the bomber doesn't simply walk away after planting a device (as happened in the London atrocity) - the suicide-bomber's face on CCTV may well be known to the anti-terrorist people, and recognition of it could very easily provide a lead to the rest of the terrorist outfit. . . surely that much is obvious?How is anonymity relevant? If you’re going to blow yourself up, it hardly matters if people know your identity.
According to some of the links I've sent you, YOU are the one in denial - that's probably why you feel the need to rubbish anyone who paints a picture of reality that is at variance with your rose-tinted one. . . Once again, if banning the totally useless, sexist anachronism called the burka counteracts this insidious sexism even to a small degree, it will ultimately benefit all Muslim women.The abuse you can’t prove is even anything close to widespread? The abuse you can’t demonstrate would be reduced by banning the burka?
Many women despised the suffragettes in their day - but few today would criticise them or their achievement. That is where your seemingly water-tight arguments break down - they will not be validated by history, I promise you.
That's enough anger to be getting on with for now, Bacon.Anything constructive to add?
Last edited by GeminiBrian; 10th August 2009 at 11:16 AM.
Brian, barn, can we avoid turning every topic into a personal comment fest and focus on the topic while engaging in an impersonal debate? Please?
[do not respond]
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
Is wearing a burka the sign of its wearer's religious devotion or of her submission to her husband?
No one is ignoring it; there are already laws against abusing women.Quote by: Gem
But you canít prove that all of them are. Red herring.Quote by: Gem
Of course you donít think youíre wrong. But that just makes you more wrong.Quote by: Gem
Uh, no. Letís agree that you have been unable to prove your claims, due to the lack of further evidence.Quote by: Gem
Be specific or donít bother posting. Saying ďyour horizons are too narrowĒ is not an argument, Explain in what way they are too narrow.Quote by: Gem
Quote by: GemYet both can be and are used in crimes, though not necessarily in the same way, and Iím willing to bet a lot more often than the burka. If banning clothing were a reasonable way of preventing crime, you would support banning these.Quote by: Gem
But until then it is innocent until proven guilty.Quote by: Gem
My not appreciating your lies means the lies must be true?Quote by: Gem
Already debating it with LostinLife. Feel free to join in.Quote by: Gem
Because they were actually being oppressed, so they had a legitimate interest in changing things. The do not have a legitimate interest in banning the burka because if they donít like it they donít have to wear it.Quote by: Gem
That and the oppression they were opposing was an objective legal oppression which there was no denying existed. This oppression you speak of is, so far, purely in your head.
I wouldnít say gratuitously.Quote by: Gem
If sheís insulted by being called reactionary, she should stop being so reactionary.Quote by: Gem
If it doesnít involve arrest, itís not a law, and if itís not law, itís not a ban.Quote by: Gem
In which case itís not a legal ban.Quote by: Gem
Because your original position has become untenable?Quote by: Gem
If a private establishment doesnít like it, they can ban it.Quote by: Gem
And Iíd like a credible source for this claim that burka-clad shoplifters are common.
Already addressed your links. If you disagree with my objections, address them directly.Quote by: Gem
Freedom does not mean integration. A free society does not force everyone to be part of the same social group.Quote by: Gem
Uh, no, because genital mutilation and forced marriages involve force and thus eliminate choice and thus are anti-freedom. Same doesnít apply to burkas, so itís a dishonest comparison.Quote by: Gem
Again, abusing women is as illegal as abusing children. What you are proposing is to remove the rights of the harmless majority for the sake of preventing a small minority from abusing said right. What part of child abuse laws sets a precedent for this?Quote by: Gem
Separate issue, which is already being addressed elsewhere. Iíll assume from your deflection that you are unable to prove that Muslim women who wear the burka find it hideous.Quote by: Gem
Not my job to prove anything. You made the claim; the onus is on you. Deflecting isnít going to change that fact.Quote by: Gem
Nope. One of the original purposes was, allegedly, to make women less sexually attractive. That doesnít necessarily mean aesthetically unattractive.Quote by: Gem
Criticise all you want, but donít claim you see it from the point of view of those that donít criticise it. How can two people at opposite ends of an argument be seeing things from the same perspective?Quote by: Gem
The couple of women whoíve voiced an opinion you happen to share? Finding two people who agree with you is hardly proof, Gem.Quote by: Gem
But you havenít proved that it will.Quote by: Gem
Until then, you have not got a leg to stand on in this debate.Quote by: Gem
Which a free society would allow them to do provided it is their choice.Quote by: Gem