• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Belgian Burkha ban for only 30 women?

It is akin to making them walk around in the raw. That's the point. By making it law and having an open door policy they are quite free to migrate somewhere else.
Oh please. Love it or leave it, huh? Great reasoning for excusing violating basic rights to wear what one wants.

I police officer can ask you to remove your glasses, hat scarf etc and you will.
And if I don't, I'm arrested. As should any person who refuses to remove anything that prohibits identification. So where is the issue?

If the attitude to those particular items changed then a law may be required to ban them too. But thus far it is not an issue hence no law.
It's a non-issue for the burka too.

And BTW, it is the same law for everyone. Non muslim women can't wear a burka either.
I don't care one iota about any religious beliefs since they are not the issue.

The issue is that if I want to wear a ****ing veil, then I should be able to wear a ****ing veil. It's absolutely ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric. It's especially ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric on the ludicrous grounds that it "makes it difficult to identify people" when countless other things do the same damn thing. It's also ridiculous to use such an argument when it's already required for me to remove coverings if I am questioned by the police.

It was, and is, a non-issue and all this law does is trample on the rights of anyone who wishes to wear a veil.
 
Oh please. Love it or leave it, huh? Great reasoning for excusing violating basic rights to wear what one wants.
Where did you get the idea that you can wear whatever you want?


And if I don't, I'm arrested. As should any person who refuses to remove anything that prohibits identification. So where is the issue?
If a cop stops you at the side of the road and instructs you to get naked?


It's a non-issue for the burka too.


I don't care one iota about any religious beliefs since they are not the issue.

The issue is that if I want to wear a ****ing veil, then I should be able to wear a ****ing veil. It's absolutely ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric. It's especially ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric on the ludicrous grounds that it "makes it difficult to identify people" when countless other things do the same damn thing. It's also ridiculous to use such an argument when it's already required for me to remove coverings if I am questioned by the police.

It was, and is, a non-issue and all this law does is trample on the rights of anyone who wishes to wear a veil.

Again it's back to choice. Wearing a Burka means you are not prepared to remove it. Thats the whole point of wearing it in the first place. So, do you arrest everyone for wearing a burka, or do you arrest everyone for refusing to removing it?
Either way the burka is illegal. What this law does it cut out the "religious discrimination" crap that the police may be faced with as they are enforcing the law, not persecuting the woman.

And if she doesn't like it, she is free to bugger off somewhere else.
 
Where did you get the idea that you can wear whatever you want?
Why can't I? That's the whole ****ing point.

If a cop stops you at the side of the road and instructs you to get naked?
No, if he stops me and asks me to identify myself.

Again it's back to choice.
It's not "back to". That's what it's always been about.

So, do you arrest everyone for wearing a burka,
No. Do you arrest everyone for wearing sunglasses, ball caps, and trench coats. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.

or do you arrest everyone for refusing to removing it?
If they refuse to remove it when asked by an officer, of course.

Either way the burka is illegal. What this law does it cut out the "religious discrimination" crap that the police may be faced with as they are enforcing the law, not persecuting the woman.
No, what the law does is remove a person's freedom to wear a piece of fabric. It does nothing more than that. It addresses nothing. It helps nothing. It prevents nothing "bad". ALL it does is remove a freedom from an individual for no good reason whatsoever.

And if she doesn't like it, she is free to bugger off somewhere else.
Ditto if she refuses to remove it when asked to by an officer. So why the need for the law again?
 
Why can't I? That's the whole ****ing point.
Try going out wearing a baseball cap and nothing else. - Apart from many an admiring stare, you'll also get arrested.


No, if he stops me and asks me to identify myself.
To those who would willingly choose to wear this article, it is the same thing.


No. Do you arrest everyone for wearing sunglasses, ball caps, and trench coats. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.
Because our cultural mores do not mandate that we keep these on in public. Its no hassle to do so. That is not the same for a woman who would willingly wear a burka.


If they refuse to remove it when asked by an officer, of course.
Which again results in the exact same thing. Willingly wear a burka, get arrested.


No, what the law does is remove a person's freedom to wear a piece of fabric. It does nothing more than that. It addresses nothing. It helps nothing. It prevents nothing "bad". ALL it does is remove a freedom from an individual for no good reason whatsoever.
What this law does is ensure that the police can identify the person they are speaking to, it ensures that things like CCTV remain a valid tool in crime detection etc.


Ditto if she refuses to remove it when asked to by an officer. So why the need for the law again?
Because the law provides them with a tool to ensure the identity of the person they are talking to or watching or recording. You walk around concealed, you get arrested.
End of.
 
Try going out wearing a baseball cap and nothing else. - Apart from many an admiring stare, you'll also get arrested.
That's not choosing TO wear something. That's choosing NOT to. That's not what I said. I said I should be able to wear what I want.

To those who would willingly choose to wear this article, it is the same thing.
So?

Because our cultural mores do not mandate that we keep these on in public. Its no hassle to do so. That is not the same for a woman who would willingly wear a burka.
Yes, it is the same.

Which again results in the exact same thing. Willingly wear a burka, get arrested.
No, it does not result in the same thing. With out the ridiculous, fascist law, a woman could wear a burka and not be bothered. She would only be arrested if she was asked by an officer to show her face for purposes of identification and then REFUSED. Same as if I refused to remove my hat and sunglasses. That's not anything all like being arrested for wearing a hat and sunglasses.

What this law does is ensure that the police can identify the person they are speaking to, it ensures that things like CCTV remain a valid tool in crime detection etc.


Because the law provides them with a tool to ensure the identity of the person they are talking to or watching or recording. You walk around concealed, you get arrested.
End of.
It ensures nothing of the sort. I can still obscure my face quite easily. Hat, sunglasses, high collar. End of story.
 
Righty-ho and away we go.


Trumped-up charges of 'incitement to wacial hatwed' were made after Ofcom received just 350 complaints. I can guess who from.

Police accuse Channel 4 of distorting film on radical Muslim preachers | Mail Online


Apparently the 'Muslim Community' was heaving with rage at the exposure: Islamist radicals: Complain early, complain often… – Telegraph Blogs

Thanks for links that I've already read. Niether however show that Muslims complained to the police and got the Dispatches program makers into hot water with the police.

As you yourself say - even with foolish lisp - "I can guess who from."

I didn't bother with the rest of your links - a word of advice you still seem to think that 10 poor links will somehow back you up when all you need is one conclusive one. Try again please.

:2wave:

burka_license.jpg


Thats not going to work at a traffic stop. Secondly, it is seen as being akin to a strip search, as such it can't be performed at the side of the road.

Nice strawman, here's the .pdf file from the UK passport service that shows what is acceptable and what is not. I don't have the Belgian passport agency link but I'd guess their rules and guidance is pretty similar (before the burkha ban anyway)

A pat down does not confirm identity.

If they suspect hidden weapons a pat down is fine, if they need to confirm identity then they have the right to ask you to remove any facial covering so as to confirm identity. This already exists in law - sorry if I misread your statement.

-- Interesting point. It's ill advised to wear a balaklava (ski-mask)in public in NI.
news-graphics-2007-_443438a.jpg

Same reason.

And it can get you arrested in the south.
Four years for man convicted of IRA membership | BreakingNews.ie

Nice point - if burka clad bombers and terrorists have been spotted in the UK or Belgium. Do you have any links and images?

On Balaclavas, there are specific reasons why the association with terrorist acts in Northern and Southern Ireland exist - not so the burkha.
 
We do know that the investigating officer was a Muslim, the Muslim Community was in uproar and that plenty complained. Data's not kept on who complains but but it's a fair bet that all the chain links are clear to be seen when not obscured by the sand.



Anil Patani himself, Ass. Chief Con. of West Midland Police kicked the whole trumped-up action:

Religious Watch: The Full Story



Full proggy: Undercover Mosque | Watch Free Documentary Online

They don't learn do they: Watch Video UnderCover Mosque: The Return. 1:5 at blinkx


All my links are good. But thanks for complaining as it allows me to clarify things further.
 
We do know that the investigating officer was a Muslim, the Muslim Community was in uproar and that plenty complained. Data's not kept on who complains but but it's a fair bet that all the chain links are clear to be seen when not obscured by the sand.



Anil Patani himself, Ass. Chief Con. of West Midland Police kicked the whole trumped-up action:

Religious Watch: The Full Story



Can the victim-playing be any more bogus: http://www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/MCB Letter & Press Release.pdf

Muslim outrage at Channel 4 film prompts new inquiry by watchdog - Times Online




Full proggy: Undercover Mosque | Watch Free Documentary Online

They don't learn do they: Watch Video UnderCover Mosque: The Return. 1:5 at blinkx




That's right, keep a look-out: Pickled Politics BMSD reaction to Undercover Mosque - Let's hope that poodle plea receives greater understanding than John Reid did when he called for the self same from the grandiously-titled 'Muslim community'.




All my links are good. I get lambasted far less often when providing them, so in the supplementary backup evidence goes. But thanks for complaining as it allows me to clarify things further.
 
Last edited:
We do know that the investigating officer was a Muslim, the Muslim Community was in uproar and that plenty complained. Data's not kept on who complains but but it's a fair bet that all the chain links are clear to be seen when not obscured by the sand --

Still nothing conclusive I'm afraid.

All the links simply say that the programme makers gave those featured a right to reply and a few also mention this - "Roger Godsiff, a Birmingham Labour MP, called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action against “words that were racist and an incitement to murder”. When that investigation was abandoned, the police went on to examine the editing of the programme, resulting in a complaint to broadcasting watchdogs."

There isn't enough evidence to give any support to your claim in any of the links provided - despite a few "exciting" headlines.
 
Good enough for me. Call it my jaundiced old reactionary mind if you will, but it looks to me there are parts of this story still untold, yet just enough to suggest what I see to be true. And as far as I can see, various Muslims complained about the show and the fact it was shown, then a senior Muslim police officer took it upon himself (under pressure?) to barge in and go all Judge Dredd on Channel 4. That link between the whiners and the coppers is obscured, but I believe consistent with what we know.

The scandal for me isn't that Muslims complained (they always complain), but motivated police investigation determined to hammer Channel 4 for exposing the truth on whatever pretext.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, I do not want to make you believe that Belgium is a totally tolerant society, as we also have racist parties (such as the Vlaams Belang, even if they can't be openly racist anymore).

But I would like to highlight the fact that Belgium in general is not "islamophobic" or "anti-muslim": we are probably the only European country that funds imams, and we are the first European country to allow a veiled deputee to enter a parliament.

mahinur-ozdemir-01.jpg


Why would a political party that puts a veiled woman on its electoral list, choose to ban the burqa for islamophobic reasons?


She should not be able to wear that thing inside.. Are people allowed to wear hats inside the same buildings?
 
What's insane about wearing a veil?

Dont misdirect this. We were talking about Burka and Niqab.


As long as it's consenting adults who are able to enter into contracts, there's no issue.

A child can also consent.

Everything that doesn't directly harm anyone, yes.

It doesn't. Which is why it's an example of another ridiculous, fascist law designed to suppress women's sexuality.

So, you also support orgies in public, sex in public places, urination inside and taking a sh** on the street then?
 
Dont misdirect this. We were talking about Burka and Niqab.
Same question

A child can also consent.
No, they cannot legally. If we change our age of consent laws, then sure. But then they'd have to be allowed to drive, work a job, live on their own, join the military, vote, etc, etc.


So, you also support orgies in public, sex in public places
I have no issue with that, no. Why would I?

, urination inside and taking a sh** on the street then?
That has to do sanitation which would harm others.
 
Same question


No, they cannot legally. If we change our age of consent laws, then sure. But then they'd have to be allowed to drive, work a job, live on their own, join the military, vote, etc, etc.



I have no issue with that, no. Why would I?


That has to do sanitation which would harm others.

Great, that gives you integreity. I respect that. I do not however agree. I think things should be regulated, because I do not believes in the majorities common sense.

And I love common sense. In the fact that its not common, in lack of a better wording for it.
 
An interesting perspective from Muslim citizens on the Burqa

"There are some places, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, where women must cover their heads; in others, notably Turkey and Tunisia, female civil servants along with pupils in state education are banned from concealing their hair".

Headgear in Muslim lands: Beyond the burqa | The Economist

Paul
 
Back
Top Bottom