UNBAN ME

First topic message reminder :

Someone unban me plz.....

nah, he censored alah ouakbar

Phoenix wrote:

i think public concealment is wrong, for whatever reason.

the general concensus througout britain is that we dont like people concealing themselves in public, that doesnt just go for islams wearing burhas, that goes for youths wearing hoodies, people wearing bike helmets and balaclavas ect when in shops. As far as im concerned, when in public everybody has a right to see who you are, and who they are talking to, and also be safe in the knowladge their identity is correct ect..... Peroid!

Now, you mentioned different styles of burkas, that is absolutely fine, so long as whatever they wear, does not conceal their face, that is my only issue! Thats not racist or hated, its peace of mind and social security!

Pahaps i kept my agruement too close to islams, because in actual fact i want this to apply to everybody, whether foriegn or british, i dont want to see any concealment in public regardless of who they are. That is not racist because everybody gets the same treatment. It just that SOME islamics are extremists and they would perposefully take offence so they can use this as an excuse to wage war on the west claim mistreatment so they can condone terrorist attacks.

Ajunta Pall wrote:

NICK FOCK YOU HAVE YOU CENSORED MY BEST ONE FU FU FU FU FU FU FU :


ALAKHLZHKA OUAKABRA !!!

lmfaooo!!!!

Battledroidlover wrote:

@Nick for all we know under that burka could be a mad guy with a machine gun.....

lol are u seriously thinking that?
you think terrorists will come, get theirselves into a burka and then go on killing ppl ??? lol

i am more afraid of school kids who hide 10 weapons in their trousers. never saw bowling for colombine? ^^
and i am more afraid of those ppl with a bomb under their pullover... like in london
and i am more afraid that someone just has a weapon in his belt.

lol, before i fear someone with a burka i am died because of fear of everyone else. i would rather hide a gun in the pampers of a baby than under a burka xD

no really, that statement shows stupidity and racist thoughts.

Phoenix wrote:

Nick you are wrong. I dont look for any excuses to hate or victimise islamic people, or any other culture for that matter.

I didn't say that. I said that some people are pleased with having found a logical reason to hate. They don't do it actively because doing that is admitting to yourself to being racist. Instead they have a near-conscious distaste for foreigners or specific foreigners, and when they find a logical argument to criticize they will gladly repeat it. It's a safe way of expressing distaste for foreign culture or people, but sometimes enough to get out the underlying racist feelings that they otherwise must keep pent-up inside themselves.

Don't get me wrong, everyone is racist in some way or another, it's called "learning." But some people are worse at checking their thoughts at the door than others.

Phoenix wrote:

Please dont claim that the british have a vendetta against islamic people, or that the use the issue of islamic attire to fuel the fire against them, that is not the case at all, it just seems that the general concensus througout britain is that we dont like people concealing themselves in public, that doesnt just go for islams wearing burhas, that goes for youths wearing hoodies, people wearing bike helmets and balaclavas ect when in shops. As far as im concerned, when in public everybody has a right to see who you are, and who they are talking to, and also be safe in the knowladge their identity is correct ect..... Peroid!

Now, you mentioned different styles of burkas, that is absolutely fine, so long as whatever they wear, does not conceal their face, that is my only issue! Thats not racist or hated, its peace of mind and social security!

Well which is it? You cannot conceal your face, or you cannot wear anything on your head? If the issue is concealment of public identity, the only thing that really matters is the face. Restricting things further is a relatively useless suppression of freedom because it doesn't give you much added information about the person. If people are having a bad hairday, they ought to be able to wear a hat. If this is allowed, then your examples of "youths wearing hoodies, people wearing bike helmets..." should be fine. It sounds like you've had discussions about youths wearing hoodies before though, and that you have a distaste for the culture of hoodie-wearers that fuels your content with finding reason for banning their attire. There may be reason to dislike hoodie-wearing culture, but attacking their attire is not the way to go about correcting it.

As for burkas, I think showing the face is a perfectly acceptable compromise to reach on the issue if security is really the only concern. Anything further reeks of ulterior motives. A burka with a hijab instead of a niqab.

Phoenix wrote:

We appease all other cultures and races so they can do as they please even when in our country, then we still get accused of being racists.

This is true: the western caucasian is the only person everybody else on earth can walk all over, and get away with it.

You don't know much about what's going on in the rest of the world then. The reason you feel this way is because places like America and Europe have good protection by law for minorities. Racist attitudes in America and Britain toward whites are largely ignored because whites don't really feel their culture or race is threatened; they are typically the ones in control anyway.

Outside of our countries, minority protection is not as good, nor protection in general. Tell the mine workers in Africa or factory workers in China that they are not walked all over. Whites are "walked all over" because they care, and that's not a bad thing. Go ahead and claim that Americans and Britains are too soft, but the world would be a better place if everyone were as soft as we were. It's not that we're too soft, it's that much of the world is too hard and uneducated. And we have our moments: Middle-Eastern culture is much more hospitable to guests and close to family relatives than American culture, where nuclear families are largely independent. America and Britain are hard in their own ways, but being soft in civil liberties is not a bad thing, it is a sign of progressiveness and strength of freedom.

The conversation about public concealment would not be occurring without the burka. Whether your reasons are innocent or not, the reason you have your reasons is far from pure: politicians and organizations have made this a public issue in England because of their ulterior motives. If you don't take the time to consider that and wonder just how big a deal women wearing burkas really is, you may play right into their chess game.

I cant write much cos my arm is hindering me today so i can only type with 1 hand. I think were on the same wavelenth more than you think, because my issue isnt with burkas in particular, or even with those who wear them, it just that the are one of the peices of attire that strongly go against my arguement. All i ask is that people do not conseal their faces when in public, by faces i mean: eyes, nose, mouth, cheekbones and chin. There are where features are strongest, and where the personal identity lies (in a visual sense). Hats, caps, scarfs, (even hoodies actually because they do not cover the face, only silhouette it to a degree) would all be acceptable. But so long as those defining featues can be seen by other members of the public, then that is fine. If burkas exsist that adhere to these parameters, then that is absolutely fine. My issue is not cultural or racial (that was BDL's), it is public security and social peace of mind. I didnt agree with BDL's arguement, it was irrational and poorely reasoned, i merely agreed that burkas should not be allowed in public in britain because they conceal the face. That goes for anybody, nobody should be allowed to conceal their faces in public no matter what the reasons.

To be honest, in the street and the house its not that big a deal, but in shops, supermarkets, train/bus stations, airports, even the workplace. I think anything that covers faces should be banned.

I want to write more, but cant be bothered cos this took ages.........

I agree that ideally no one should be covering their face in public, but there are more problems than just cultural ones when it comes to covering the face. What if someone has a severe facial disfiguration and they want to cover part of it up? There are legit reasons for wanting to cover the face up, cultural or otherwise, so it's basically a matter of which is more important: freedom or security. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Mmm you have touched on a problem......

To Muslims, their cultural and religious traditions are far more important reasons than facial disfiguration to allow covering the face. With or without your conscious knowledge of it, the societal dialogue that goes on in Britain has numbed you to the personal side of Muslim culture with regards to this issue. The Muslims whom this debate affects would be hurt to see that you yield for the facial disfiguration but not for their culture. At the moment it is an acceptable form of discrimination in Britain, with over 75% of the population feeling that the burka should be banned. It's not really your fault for feeling that way because it's just part of the atmosphere over there, but you can help to do something about it by pointing out the fallacies in many people's arguments.

When Britain talks of banning the burka, security may be a reason that is given, but if security is the real issue, that's what would be banned: anything covering the face in public. Instead the burka will likely be the only thing targeted, which is obviously culturally charged. Don't let the politicians convince you to support its ban in the name of security, it's simply a tactic. The gain in security from banning the burka is not worth the discriminatory loss of freedom.

As for the Western view that it is a symbol of Islamic culture's oppression of women, I'm sure there is validity in that point. But attacking attire is not the way to go about changing those views; the only things those women will gain from it are feeling cut off from their culture and being uncomfortable and ashamed in public. Plenty of Muslim women do not wear burkas and instead only wear the hijab, and many more don't wear any clothing traditional for women in the Middle-East. But many of them do <em>choose</em> to wear the burka and indeed prefer it, it is how they are raised, just as we Westerns are raised to find it strange.

It has not been long since Western cultures also oppressed women through law, and indeed it still occurs in a minor way in culture. Yet we were fully capable of doing that without dressing them in something like the burka. Attitudes toward women in society are not caused by dress, dress is simply a symptom. Effort should not be put into treating the symptoms, but rather the cause. As such, banning the burka is a useless feat, accomplishing primarily social discrimination and the creation of new tension.

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

urqas are "not welcome" in France. "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity".

Yes i totally agree with this statement, it rings true from a moral and human rights point of veiw. Ive already stated i think burka's, and womens role in that culture, both sexist and immoral. But that isnt my arguement.

Your issue seems to be nick, that you know that burkas will be banned for the good of security(according to the law and politicians), but ironically (and convinently) everybody else can cover and cloth themselves just how the want, regardless of concealment or hidden identity factors. Obviously (or not so obvious to some ) this is biased and immoral, especially if that rule of no concealment in public only comes into effect against the muslim society.

Yes i appreaciate your concern, i too dont agree with this at all, it is very unfair, unfortunely it is a likely scenario. The only remedy is if we if we enforce this law against the whole of the british public, that is moral, that is fair, everybody is in the same boat with equal treatment and conform to adhere to all.

The only problem we have then is the 'do we make the elephant man show his face' problem. Again, that is a poser....

Another problem is, and this boarding on racist (which i dont want to be so forgive me ) but after 9/11, 7/7, and other terrorist incidents caused by muslims (namely al qaeda), there is a global fear, and certain resentment towards some muslims. The problem is that the innocent ones (the vast majority of course) get tarred with same brush, and are treated the same as the extremists. It isnt fair on them, they are paying the price for the evils that muslim extremist have commited. The problem is that nobody can identify a good muslim from a bad one, just by sight, so they all get treated with same distrust. (ok this is a little o.t.t, most muslims are treated fine in this country, but not always).

Yet there again i remeber something that boiled my blood. A year ago in a town called Luton (somewhere down south, dunno where exactly lol) there was a parade for british soldiers returning home from afghanistan. Some muslim extremists, living in britain i might add decided to disturb the parade with a demonatrational protest of their own. They held up banners aloft saying "british soldiers are war crimals", and "British government is terrorist government". It was outragous, and on what was suppost to be a glorious and patriotic day for those lads putting their lives on the line for a better future. More amazingly, the british police force actually surrounded the extremists and formed a guard, sheilding them from harm by pissed off british mothers and fathers and other family members just wanting to welcome their boys and girls home, even though the muslims where the aggressors in the first place! Ironic that the british police force defends the extremists rather than the public, but i guess they wanted to avoid bloodshed.

Ok now the opinions muslims involved were not representative of the muslim community as a whole, we know that. But it looks bad and rubs off on all those muslims who do want peace, who are not extremists, who are good people. It makes everything bad for them, they have to fight against the tide of their own extremist people pulling them back. Its such a shame but what can we do, we dont know which muslims to trust and which not too. Thats why they are surrounded by mistrust.

It boils down to this. "Few muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are mulims." Ok that may be a little harsh and extreme on my part, but rest assured that there are plenty of people worldwide that have this opinion. Which is why some poeple have mistrust and dislike towards muslims, and why partys such as the BNP exsist and gain support.

Its just terrible, a sad state of affairs............

I agree with most of what you said, but the burqa is not immoral, just sexist. Then again so are lots of things we like. And as for the police protecting the Muslim protesters, I think they were doing the right thing. Everyone has the right to peaceably assemble, and in Britain it was those Muslim protesters who would have been likely to be attacked. I do think that disrespectful protests like that if they occur at a soldier's funeral should be banned, though.

My girlfriend just brought up an important point that I had not thought of. She studies political science and minors in Middle-Eastern studies. She says that for Muslim families in Western society, most girls who wear the burqa or other coverings are made to do so by their mothers. For the ones that are forced to wear the burqa by their fathers or brothers, banning the burqa will do the opposite of freeing the girl: instead she will be forced to always stay at home because she cannot protect her modesty in public. Apparently when France banned religious apparel in public schools, many Muslim girls were pulled out of school for this very reason.

That totally changes my perspective and makes this an even more difficult topic.

I don't think anyone moving to a foreign country should expect that society to bow to their cultural standards. It's a ludicrous thought. When you go to a new country you should expect that culturally things are going to be different and you must accept that as fact. When you become citizen of a new country you vow to uphold their laws, not those of the country you left. Because of security issues alone the burqa is unacceptable today in many public places in the US. This has not happened because we wanted it to happen. Some idiots forced it to be so. You can spin the burqa thing however you like but I believe it is used repress women, not empower them. Maybe we should take away a woman's right to drive, to vote, and an education too? Women's rights have a long way to go in many muslim countries. If I ever have a daughter I would be ashamed for her to be treated as many women are in many of these countries.

Now, I should say this is not the case in all muslim countries. In some muslim cultures the mother/woman is highly valued. This is the case in some african countries (e.g. Mali).

I agree with Phoenix on much of what he says. Nice to see the Brits have some grit, unlike many of the laissez faire attitudes we see from many European countries. Thank God for Sarkozy and Tony Blair.

I suppose anything you don't agree with is spin, eh? I've already given ample reasons that security and oppression are poor arguments for targeting the burqa specifically. I have no reason to oppose a ban of the burqa other than I believe it's a bad idea. Those idiots you cite give better arguments than you do. Tone down the indirect personal attacks and attempt to explain your opinions rather than blurt them out aggressively. Your post is filled with emotional but inaccurate words, a tactic that might embolden your supporters but is very transparent to those who think. "Bow to their culture"? How is allowing a woman the freedom to dress a certain way bowing down?

Let me put this simply:

wehr wrote:

I don't think anyone moving to a foreign country should expect that society to bow to their cultural standards. It's a ludicrous thought. When you go to a new country you should expect that culturally things are going to be different and you must accept that as fact. When you become citizen of a new country you vow to uphold their laws, not those of the country you left.

<strong>All of this can and does exist without banning the burqa.</strong>

Let me try your exaggeration out with a touch of sarcasm: while you're at it wehr, why don't you ban accents, foreign languages, and Islam for that matter. Why should Britain bow down to Islam and let Muslims into the country in the first place? If people are going to move to Britain, they ought to expect to convert to Christianity, dye their skin white, and say shit like "Bloody brilliant!"

I dunno, maybe Britain <em>should</em> ban things that are culturally different from its standards. Perhaps Britain isn't made for equality and diversity. But America sure as hell is, and that's the reason it's not banned here, not because some idiots stopped it.

There are plenty of Muslim women in Western countries who choose to wear traditional Muslim dress even if they are not forced to. My girlfriend gives me the example of a girl who chose to wear the burqa even though her father doesn't want her to, because in public people give him nasty looks because they think he forces her to wear it. I agree that the burqa doesn't empower women, but it also does not oppress them. Obviously women in Islamic countries don't have the freedoms they should, but that doesn't mean the burqa is evil.

You want to give Muslim women freedom, but you don't care that you are taking their freedom away. This is less about women and more about your attitude toward Islam. Convince Muslims to alter their views toward women before you use the hammer of law. You'll only create new tensions and reasons for them to resist the positive elements of our culture.

Use some calm logic or I'll have to call out the big guns (my gf) in this debate to squash the ignoring of my words.

Nick, where did I say anything about banning the burqa? I mentioned that they are not acceptable in many public places, like airports, due to security issues. Where did I say I want any countries, or religion's, women to be free? You just made more spin by adding stuff I did not say. And where are the indirect attacks? Tell me specifically what you felt was an indirect attack? Is my simply not agreeing with your position an attack? Don't tell me I'm inaccurate without stating exactly what you are talking about. You've misstated facts about burqas and I avoided confronting you, as not to offend you. You seem to like misconstruing topics while feeding in off subject material, to try and extricate yourself from a position in which you will likely not find much support. Bravo Phoenix, I'd get you a beer at the pub any day. I'd buy Nick one too. Nick must be left of center.

PS- I won't even comment on your bit over accents, languages, etc... other then it being overdone puerility!

Yes, forgive me for using common sense when interpreting your words. When we are talking about banning the burqa, and you tell me that it is unacceptable in public and that you believe it represses women, I extrapolate that to your agreeing with its being banned. Crazy huh? When you say I add spin, add words that you did not say, it is not that I am adding words to your mouth, it's that I am taking your words within the context of this discussion and evaluating them in as reasonable a manner as I can to come up with the conclusions you're asking your reader to draw from your words. If you don't want people drawing conclusions, don't post things that are generic with high applicability to the thread; people are bound to assume you are part of the conversation rather than someone talking to themselves, and so they will assume you are making a point rather than solely stating your opinions, begging for them to be left alone.

The indirect attacks are present in calling your opposition idiots and praising the characteristics of those who agree with you while mocking those of your opposition:

wehr wrote:

Nice to see the Brits have some grit, unlike many of the laissez faire attitudes we see from many European countries.

You imply both that one is better than the other, and also that each is only present in their respective groups. However, one can have grit with respect to holding fast to a laissez-faire attitude. Moreover, liberals, moderates, and conservatives all have this supposedly undesirable laissez-faire attitude when it comes to particular issues.

The inaccuracy was in reference to your use of emotional words, and I did in fact give the example of your using "bow down to their culture," which is totally overdone. Letting someone dress a certain way is not bowing down; it takes no energy to refrain from banning something. If you were not talking about the burqa, maybe you shouldn't be posting that sentence without qualification in a thread about banning the burqa.

In case I wasn't clear enough the first time, my exaggeration part about accents was a satire on your bit about voting. It was supposed to be overdone, because so was yours.

Why don't <em>you</em> tell <em>me</em> exactly what you mean so I don't have to use my biased brain to figure out your intent. Please do point out my misstated facts, but refrain from claiming I like to misconstrue topics when my motivation is simply to help people. Phoenix has been respectful with me and we have both found common ground, but if you really believe that I will not find support here and yet I continue to engage people in debate, who is the one who truly has grit?

Guys im just gonna bow out of this. Ive said my peice, between your arguements im on the fence either way, so im just gonna leave it.

Soz Nick, I'm off this superfluous exchange. No time for your pretentiousness ad infinitum.

wehr

Veni, vidi, vici !!!

That's the thing wehr, it's not superfluous to me; I think it's an important issue and I legitimately wanted to talk it out and see if we could reach an understanding. Surely you can't believe that I am the only one who's been pretentious here; if I've been, so have you. I responded to your first post in a similar fashion to said post because I figured it would be the only way to get you to explain yourself; apparently I was only half right. When I feel that a person or a group of people are being mistreated - whether it be in reality or theoretically with the potential for becoming reality - I am inclined to defend them and try to share what I imagine their perspective might be. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and I would hope you would also want for people to do that for one another.

Peace.

I love how this unban me topic turned into a racism/religion dispute....

Yea its not good to talk about something like that and being racism in public....if you have a opinion then keep it for yourself ^^

Only for Healthy living ya know

This topic is dead zem .......*sigh*

true