Belgian Lawmakers Vote To Ban Burka

[ans]

thats what i'm saying, how do you know it's a woman and not a terrorist

 

Women can be terrorists too

 

Sexist.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I believe in democracy, freedom of expression and liberalism, but we meed laws and rules to enable us to have these priviliges!

Freedom of expression and democracy should not be considered privileges. They should be taken for granted as things we must have.

We had a damn sight more freedom before we had terrorism from within our midst and it's a fine line between 'fluffy' liberalism and being blown to pieces.

It is the government that took away such freedoms, not the terrorists. And when I refer to liberalism I am talking about the very basic concepts which are supposed to existence and functioning of liberal democratic government.

The state has a government democratically elected to protect the ordinary population from all kinds of harm.

It might be foolishly elected to do so, but the British government doesn't protect the people from harm in practice, it puts us under greater harm.

Groups or individuals who threaten others must be legislated against!

Sorry, who's threatening us?

[Max Power]

I believe in democracy, freedom of expression and liberalism, but we meed laws and rules to enable us to have these priviliges!

Freedom of expression and democracy should not be considered privileges. They should be taken for granted as things we must have.

We had a damn sight more freedom before we had terrorism from within our midst and it's a fine line between 'fluffy' liberalism and being blown to pieces.

It is the government that took away such freedoms, not the terrorists. And when I refer to liberalism I am talking about the very basic concepts which are supposed to existence and functioning of liberal democratic government.

The state has a government democratically elected to protect the ordinary population from all kinds of harm.

It might be foolishly elected to do so, but the British government doesn't protect the people from harm in practice, it puts us under greater harm.

Groups or individuals who threaten others must be legislated against!

Sorry, who's threatening us?

 

Sorry LDV, you seem to live in some imaginary Utopian society! Rights are priviliges which can easily be taken away. Many of ours have, and the reasons have been cited as terrorism and a lawless society! If everyone had the right to behave the way they want, what protection is there for everyone? That is why governments take certain rights away, in response to the terrorists who are responsible for this, contrary to what you believe.

I would agree that the decision to invade Iraq put us in danger, but they have a duty to then protect us from that danger. It is not always a simple decision not to become involved in conflict, however I believe in the case of Iraq that it was!

At the moment we are threatened by Muslim radicals, I'm sure you've read the news?

 

I'm not getting at you as I quite like your simplistic view of society, but like me you will come to realise that there are those amongst us who are just plain evil. Unfortunately it is these people who are the cause of loss of rights. The terrorist threat is enough to cause us to have legislation thrust upon us, and that is without any action from them at all!

[mæŋksmən]

I'm sure you've read the news.

 

Good old max another perfect member of the sheeple.

Keep forming your world view on what your spoon fed max, by that little box in your front room.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry LDV, you seem to live in some imaginary Utopian society! Rights are priviliges which can easily be taken away.

I don't live in a utopian society, I know how things work. You seem to not be able to make a distinction between freedoms and rights. For instance, freedom of speech is something that I should have. It is not something I should regard as a gift or privilege from others or from the governments. Freedom of expression is another example - though I don't know what you define as 'expression', I am not talking about 'do what you want'.

Regardless of the artificial constructs known as rights, which treats many freedoms we should simply have as privileges, governments have the POWER to take away or grant the ability of its citizens to control themselves. But if we lived in a society where the government forbade everyone from leaving their house after 9pm but then removed this law - would we think it is a privilege to enjoy a freedom that we should already have had?

 

...Many of ours have, and the reasons have been cited as terrorism and a lawless society! If everyone had the right to behave the way they want, what protection is there for everyone? That is why governments take certain rights away, in response to the terrorists who are responsible for this, contrary to what you believe.

Those are the reasons given. But both terrorism and crime don't come out of nowhere, there are particular reasons why they occur - many of which are the result of government action in society and the world.

 

And we are, however, talking about particular freedoms that have been removed for the supposed reasons of the threat of terrorism. So many of these removals of freedoms have little good justification. Governments will use any opportunity to claw back control over their subjects if they can get away with it. It isn't as if the government has looked at the threat from the terrorism and made prudent decisions to protect its citizens by restricting or removing basic liberties that everyone should have. Look at some of the removal of rights in the Patriot Act that was brought in not long after the 9/11 plane crashes or detention laws brought in Britain or the photography laws. They don't particularly add much security, yet they do completely override basic liberties and basic legal rights.

I would agree that the decision to invade Iraq put us in danger, but they have a duty to then protect us from that danger. It is not always a simple decision not to become involved in conflict, however I believe in the case of Iraq that it was!

What, a simple decision? I think so too, in the sense that it didn't the government knew what it wanted and went for it in Iraq. A very bad decision indeed. But are you implying that we ignore or allow the government to get on with creating threats to our security, as long as they take steps to remove everyone freedoms to add that supposed protection? In any case, you'd be a fool to believe that the government actually works in practice to protect the people - it does the opposite, regardless of what you think politicians are there in government to do.

This issue doesn't even touch on another matter, how sound the argument is that stopping women wearing burkhas actually adds to security.

At the moment we are threatened by Muslim radicals, I'm sure you've read the news?

We are threatened by a small Muslim political group. How many of them are there compared with the number of other Muslims in society and across the world? Do you honestly think that the actions of this small deserve the elimination of certain freedoms enjoyed by the vast majority? Do you not also recognise that such a particular restriction that is not resisted or railed against by society sets something a precedent in our understanding what is or is not acceptable for governments to do?

I do think there is a racial element to this in regard to the attitudes of many who agree with a ban, I really do.

[Max Power]

I'm sure you've read the news.

 

Good old max another perfect member of the sheeple.

Keep forming your world view on what your spoon fed max, by that little box in your front room.

 

I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions and views, and, like you, they will be influenced by what I read or see on TV! I do also listen to others opinions and see things for myself, I wouldn't say that I'm spoon fed though! That does not mean I accept everything I see, read or hear. There are certain practicalities in all of this and the middle ground is usually acceptable to most people.

 

I have not yet heard a good enough arguement to make me change my opinions on the freedoms issue, or the bhurka in particular.

I despise our loss of freedoms and rights but we are tackling it from the wrong direction. I hate being on camera all the time, hate the over zealous security at ports and airports, hate not being able to say what I think for fear of upsetting someone for example. What are we to do about it, any serious suggestions?

 

LDV is probably right I'm sure, in saying that the calls to ban the bhurka etc are racially motivated in some if not most people. I just think that it's unfair when you can't get served in a fuel station in a crash helmet, served in some pubs and cafes in motorcycle gear and have to remove your hat in a pub, bank etc so you can be seen on camera! Simple as that.

Anything else relating to muslim extremists is not intended as racist, it just seems that that is where the current threat is from. It used to be the Irish. And it doesn't matter if there are only relatively small numbers of them. It didn't take many of them to fly into the twin towers or carry out the London suicide bombings, the Omagh bombing, the Birmingham and Guildford bombings. That is what causes our freedoms to be limited. Sometimes knee jerk reactions but the idea I guess is to reassure people that something is being done.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

MaxPower - your argument seems to be that if a small number of Muslim terrorists are a threat to society, which is true, might wear a burkha then we have to stop all people wearing them. Unless you can elaborate, because I am not really picking on how you think it is right to ban it. Freedoms are not things to be set aside lightly, yet this would be an instance when they appear to be.

 

That is what causes our freedoms to be limited. Sometimes knee jerk reactions but the idea I guess is to reassure people that something is being done.

This is telling. You seem to imply here that the removal of freedoms can be justified to provide a reassurance to everyone else that something is supposedly being done to make everyone secure. Are you going to honestly claim that this is ok?

[P.K.]

I don't see what the problem is. Take this driving licence for example:

 

 

What's wrong with that?

[slinkydevil]

I don't see what the problem is. Take this driving licence for example:

 

 

What's wrong with that?

 

She doesn't suit blue does she?

[Max Power]

MaxPower - your argument seems to be that if a small number of Muslim terrorists are a threat to society, which is true, might wear a burkha then we have to stop all people wearing them. Unless you can elaborate, because I am not really picking on how you think it is right to ban it. Freedoms are not things to be set aside lightly, yet this would be an instance when they appear to be.

 

That is what causes our freedoms to be limited. Sometimes knee jerk reactions but the idea I guess is to reassure people that something is being done.

This is telling. You seem to imply here that the removal of freedoms can be justified to provide a reassurance to everyone else that something is supposedly being done to make everyone secure. Are you going to honestly claim that this is ok?

 

I thought I had answered the reasons, re. the crash helmet, hats in pubs etc? The driving licence below is another reason. It's not only terrorism, petty crime etc is easier if you can't be identified!

 

I'm not saying that I agree with all losses of freedoms, but common sense has to prevail at some point. The trouble with giving up freedoms is that it will be nigh on impossible to get them back! That's why I say that groups should be more flexible, meaning that they shouldn't raise a fuss if someone asks for a veil to be removed. It's hardly life and death is it? Then no legislation would be required! The problem appears to be that these people want something that just isn't practical for them to have in this day and age.

[Tacketyboots]

I don't see what the problem is. Take this driving licence for example:

 

 

What's wrong with that?

 

 

They can't spell Iraq!!!!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't see what the problem is. Take this driving licence for example:

 

 

What's wrong with that?

Well yeah, that's fucking stupid. But the issue with this is not one that we are dealing with here, because a ban is not required to get someone to put their picture on their passport and not required in order to identify someone.

How about a society where you can't drive unless you remove your headgear and then when stopped to provide identification you also have to remove it, but all those times before and afterwards you are do what you like. That's a massive improvement on a outright ban.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I thought I had answered the reasons, re. the crash helmet, hats in pubs etc? The driving licence below is another reason. It's not only terrorism, petty crime etc is easier if you can't be identified!

 

I'm not saying that I agree with all losses of freedoms, but common sense has to prevail at some point. The trouble with giving up freedoms is that it will be nigh on impossible to get them back! That's why I say that groups should be more flexible, meaning that they shouldn't raise a fuss if someone asks for a veil to be removed. It's hardly life and death is it? Then no legislation would be required! The problem appears to be that these people want something that just isn't practical for them to have in this day and age.

Then I can only think you heavily devalue such freedoms when you think they can be taken away so frivolously. Ok, you have a problem or don't like the issue of removing headgear in certain locations. These aren't laws. And the driving licence issue can be resolved specifically by making it necessary for such headgear to be removed.

 

You mention that people should be flexible and not kick up a fuss. Well let them kick up a fuss in a bank, in a pub, when getting a driving licence and leave it to the discretions of those who provide such services as to what is required. Common sense is refuse to take a photo when someone has a niqab on. Let common sense decide things.

 

I think you recognise there are some quite distinct issues in society that you believe a ban can tackle, but the fact that the reasoning is so poor I have to discount that you look at the reduction of freedoms seriously. I mean, you mention security - well security is not going to be improve significantly from this. Also, making people feel better at the expense at others freedoms is disgraceful in this situation. Any other issue is not relevant to the supposed reasoning behinf introducing this law.

 

It's hardly life or death, but without certain freedoms there is little human dignity in society and it does devalue our lives. If we can't control our lives then what's the point in living? In this day and age anyone attempting to curb our freedoms has to be challenged except when there reasons are so compelling and so absolutely necessary.

 

But can you think of many laws enacted in relation to the terrorist threat that bear similarity to this burka ban? I can't.

[mæŋksmən]

It can be all cleared up with one bit of legislation.

When applying for asylum or residency you have to agree to follow english tradition as part of their citizenship.

I.e. dress as the locals and use the same language as the locals, after 2 years they should be assessed and if they cannot speak english, then thrown back out.

 

There would be none of this multilingual schooling/religion etc bullshit then.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What is English tradition? I wouldn't feel rather dubious about endorsing English or Manx traditions - bit of a mixed bag! I think you'll find that people who move to Britain do largely eschew a lot of their cultural behaviours in order to get by. But obviously some things will cause problems. Some of these problems should be dealt with. By forcing assimilation is not the right way to go. If I went to Saudi Arabia, I see no good why I should have assimilate into their culture, the same with Russia, China, etc. Our differences are important.

 

Just curious, but would you apply the same legal situation to British residents in Spain? I assume you would, but just want to check for consistency.

 

But in terms of schools, there should no absolutely no religious background to State schools. No Catholic or Muslim schools supportedby the State. Religion should be taught to gain an understanding of various religious but never taught to further or maintain belief.