Burka

[claire]

Banning burkas has little to do with eliminating the risk of terrorism; sure, they might be used by those intent on doing harm (or having just done it), but if someone is going to commit a terrorist act, then I suspect they will find a way to do it, regardless of the availability of capacious garments that can cover their faces...

As for the ongoing discussion regarding whether burka/niqab wearing women will sit and talk face to face with someone and show their face--of course they will, so long as there are only women and young children present. The offence taken at their not showing their face can only be taken by men; now, I know it's possible to take offence at the idea that they are covering themselves because men can't be trusted not to go wild with desire, but since such men should know themselves better than that, why trouble to get offended?

No, the reasons for banning burkas et cetera have little to do with these issues; they are simply an expression of discomfort over The Other. Is that their problem, or ours?

(And since the other populations of this country aren't doing a grand job at protecting vulnerable women of any race, background or creed, I don't think we can justify this discomfort on the basis of wishing to protect covered muslim women from their own backgrounds.)

Just thoughts, on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

[Limehouse]

Caz,
I have a great deal of respect for you and can see that our differences over this matter are probably due to our different experiences in life.

For example you talk about the “fraction likely to pose any risk”. Quite true, the problem is sorting out which fraction it is. Terrorists maybe evil but they are not stupid. The people they send are not turban wearing, beard sporting Koran clutching fanatics calling for Jihad whilst running around the airport clutching a fizzing orb marked “Bomb”.

They are trying to recruit exactly the opposite. Richard Reid, The Shoe Bomber, is a perfect example. Born and raised in London (his father a Jamaican career criminal – someone else who bit the hand that fed them) he did not conform to the popular concept of this “fraction likely to cause trouble” and was only prevented from committing mass murder when he was stopped trying to set off his bomb.

When it comes to terrorists there is no definable fraction to focus on, you must suspect everyone. In Northern Ireland we soon learned that the mother pushing the pram with a screaming baby inside needing a nappy changed often concealed arms and explosives underneath the babies’ mattress. A trick used by the terrorists was to stick a piece of jagged glass on to a babies arm with an Elastoplast to make it cry. The idea was a sentry was likely to wave through a crying baby to get rid of it.

Now that didn’t mean that every woman pushing a pram was a terrorist mule, but how do you insure that they are not except by treating them all as if they were. Would you bet someone’s life on it?

Charles de Menezes was shot because he was wrongly identified leaving a block of flats where a terrorist suspect was living. How much more difficult is it going to be to identify someone if they are completely covered from head to feet. It is known that some of the people responsible for the failed bombings on the 21/7 escaped wearing Burkas.

Live and let live is a wonderful concept but you have to accept there are some people in the world today who want to make sure that we don’t live – and to these people being able to wander around completely immune to surveillance because they are wearing a Burka is a gift from Allah, and one more example of just how stupid we are.

Now I’m quite sure you are horrified that there are some people who spend their entire lives never trusting and suspecting everyone, as so you should be - remember what Churchill said “"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

So perhaps in the end our views are formed by the lives we have led.

But Bob - as you describe above - if terrorists are just as likely to not be wearing a Burka as wearing one - there is no real justification of banning them on the basis of preventing terrorism - is there?

[Limehouse]

Thanks for that clarification Ally. The figures in favour are much higher than I expected but not really a 'vast majority'.

[Ally]

I completely disagree that 'the vast majority of the electorate' supported or support capital punishment. Where is the evidence for this?

He was talking about when capital punishment was abolished. At which time, I think something like 75 % of the population was in favor of the death penalty. Now with governmental "education" and indoctrination, the numbers of those who support capital punishment are still higher, at about 46-49 percent depending on which crime was committed. The last blanket poll on capital punishment attitudes occurred in 06.

The below is a summary but the actual poll is out there somewhere.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21544/death-penalty-gets-less-support-from-britons-canadians-than-americans.aspx

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Rubyretro,

Because, Bob, unless the law here has changed since I said it, it is still ok for a woman to wear a burka wherever she goes, if there is no evidence that she is a threat to anyone's safety or intent on committing a crime.


Like making all of us jump through the same hoops at airports, you mean, when only a fraction are likely to pose any risk?

I would go the 'live and let live' way except for those with a proven track record for trouble. I don't regard women who wear a burka for innocent reasons either as disrespectful or 'trouble'.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,
I have a great deal of respect for you and can see that our differences over this matter are probably due to our different experiences in life.

For example you talk about the “fraction likely to pose any risk”. Quite true, the problem is sorting out which fraction it is. Terrorists maybe evil but they are not stupid. The people they send are not turban wearing, beard sporting Koran clutching fanatics calling for Jihad whilst running around the airport clutching a fizzing orb marked “Bomb”.

They are trying to recruit exactly the opposite. Richard Reid, The Shoe Bomber, is a perfect example. Born and raised in London (his father a Jamaican career criminal – someone else who bit the hand that fed them) he did not conform to the popular concept of this “fraction likely to cause trouble” and was only prevented from committing mass murder when he was stopped trying to set off his bomb.

When it comes to terrorists there is no definable fraction to focus on, you must suspect everyone. In Northern Ireland we soon learned that the mother pushing the pram with a screaming baby inside needing a nappy changed often concealed arms and explosives underneath the babies’ mattress. A trick used by the terrorists was to stick a piece of jagged glass on to a babies arm with an Elastoplast to make it cry. The idea was a sentry was likely to wave through a crying baby to get rid of it.

Now that didn’t mean that every woman pushing a pram was a terrorist mule, but how do you insure that they are not except by treating them all as if they were. Would you bet someone’s life on it?

Charles de Menezes was shot because he was wrongly identified leaving a block of flats where a terrorist suspect was living. How much more difficult is it going to be to identify someone if they are completely covered from head to feet. It is known that some of the people responsible for the failed bombings on the 21/7 escaped wearing Burkas.

Live and let live is a wonderful concept but you have to accept there are some people in the world today who want to make sure that we don’t live – and to these people being able to wander around completely immune to surveillance because they are wearing a Burka is a gift from Allah, and one more example of just how stupid we are.

Now I’m quite sure you are horrified that there are some people who spend their entire lives never trusting and suspecting everyone, as so you should be - remember what Churchill said “"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

So perhaps in the end our views are formed by the lives we have led.

[Rubyretro]

I completely disagree that 'the vast majority of the electorate' supported or support capital punishment. Where is the evidence for this?

Totally agree with you Limehouse !

[Robert]

Oh my God. There really is no hope.

[Limehouse]

Caz, I am not arguing the case for or against capital punishment. I'm simply stating that the vast majority of the electorate wanted it, but they did not get it. Hence this isn't a democracy.

Obviously not everyone is equipped to make laws on every issue. That's why we have politicians, people who are supposedly more informed about the issues (don't laugh!) and who decide on the best course of action. But in a democracy, what to delegate is a matter for the electorate. If I have a leak in a pipe I may call a plumber. But having called him, I will not allow him to dictate to me what kind of bathroom suite I should have, whether I should get a new washing machine, or whether I should buy bottled water.

I completely disagree that 'the vast majority of the electorate' supported or support capital punishment. Where is the evidence for this?

[Normy]

Hi all
Didn't the prophet Mohammed marry to a 6 year old girl (Ayesha) when he was 54?
I thought they consumated the marriage when she was 9 years old.

Apart from the Burka, shouldn't it be of some concern when a sex offender says: 'Hey everybody, God's just told me how we should all be living!'

Cheers

Normy

[Robert]

Caz, I am not arguing the case for or against capital punishment. I'm simply stating that the vast majority of the electorate wanted it, but they did not get it. Hence this isn't a democracy.

Obviously not everyone is equipped to make laws on every issue. That's why we have politicians, people who are supposedly more informed about the issues (don't laugh!) and who decide on the best course of action. But in a democracy, what to delegate is a matter for the electorate. If I have a leak in a pipe I may call a plumber. But having called him, I will not allow him to dictate to me what kind of bathroom suite I should have, whether I should get a new washing machine, or whether I should buy bottled water.

[caz]

where are all your militant students ? Our students are often on the streets 'demonstrating' ; that's because they interest themselvesin the mooted 'laws' which will effect them, they read the 'small print' and they feel involved. I participate in a forum devoted to Fashion, of which a majority are students -quite apart from the fact that they can't string a sentence together (yes ! worse than Me, Caz -and I left school at 16),

Hi Rubyretro,

Our students used to demonstrate a lot more than they do now. They don't seem to have the spirit for it these days. Or maybe they prefer the spirits they can get cheap in the student bars.

I wasn't far behind you. I left school about a month after my 17th.

They have now signed up to something which actually makes it illegal to reintroduce the death penalty.

What a waste of time and effort, Robert.

You wouldn't get a jury together these days who would deliver a unanimous guilty verdict if the judge was likely to whip out the old black cap. All the murderers would be acquitted.

Caz

I think you are (deliberately) missing the point here. If it has been decreed that people should not walk into banks and other establishments with their features covered by a crash helmet, then why do you say it’s ok to go into these places with their features covered by other means?

Because, Bob, unless the law here has changed since I said it, it is still ok for a woman to wear a burka wherever she goes, if there is no evidence that she is a threat to anyone's safety or intent on committing a crime.

I have no problem with women who wish to speak to me with their faces covered. I probably won't hear them though, because my ears don't work as well as they used to. I also have no problem with you seeing this as a sign of disrespect or getting your nuts and bolts out to show such women the error of their ways and what you're made of. I just happen to have a different view - if I may - of what is respectful of my 'culture' (sounds like something you get rid of with yogurt) and what isn't.

I also take Robert's view that people ought not to be treated automatically as security threats - in airports was his example - unless they belong to certain 'problem' groups. In this regard, burka wearers in airports would obviously be part of a wider group that would warrant more checking than, say, a pensioners' trip to Benidorm. By the same token, until burka wearing women start robbing banks or running riot in shopping centres, the authorities will probably not regard them with the same suspicion as they do crash helmet or hooded top wearers.

I'm not saying it is ok for 'incomers' to completely ignore the way we live, so no, I'm not saying it’s ok for British women to go to Muslim countries and bathe topless. We have to take the consequences of our own behaviour wherever we are in the world, whether it's within the laws of that land or against them. But I fail to see why you should feel completely 'dumped on' in the land you have chosen to make your home because of women who wear a burka in that same land.

The first step in getting people to get along with each other is to treat them all exactly the same, if you don’t you are building up trouble.

Like making all of us jump through the same hoops at airports, you mean, when only a fraction are likely to pose any risk?

I would go the 'live and let live' way except for those with a proven track record for trouble. I don't regard women who wear a burka for innocent reasons either as disrespectful or 'trouble'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bob Hinton]

Unfairness

Caz
You ask where the unfairness lies I’ll tell you. If I am riding a motorcycle without a crash helmet, properly approved, I can be fined for breaking the law. If however I am an incomer and wrap a turban around my head I can get away with it. If I am walking down the street with a six inch bladed knife tucked into my sock I can be charged with carrying an offensive weapon, if I am an incomer and claim it is part of my religion I again can get away with it.

The reason why “racism” is always on the rise is because it jars with people that incomers get away with things for which the indigenous population is hauled before the courts for. It's got nothing to do with race it's to do with one lot of people being treated differently from another.

The first step in getting people to get along with each other is to treat them all exactly the same, if you don’t you are building up trouble.

[Bob Hinton]

Caz

I think you are (deliberately) missing the point here. If it has been decreed that people should not walk into banks and other establishments with their features covered by a crash helmet, then why do you say it’s ok to go into these places with their features covered by other means?
The crux here is covering the face, not what it is covered by. It is a part of Western culture to speak to people with their faces uncovered, why is it such a drag for incomers to respect our culture? What is the problem you have with that?

If you say it is alright for incomers to completely ignore the way the indigenous population lives, are you then saying it’s ok for British women to go to Muslim countries and bathe topless? If not why not? Why is it we here are always respecting others while being completely dumped on ourselves?

[Robert]

I have never created a poltical party, though I would relish the chance to destroy a few.

[Robert]

Here's an example. The majority of people have always backed capital punishment. So, of course, the MPs abolished it. There was a brief resurgence of pro-hanging sentiment among MPs when one or two of their own were killed - murder was getting too close to home! - but it remained abolished.

The votes on hanging were always free votes, because the MPs claimed it was an issue of conscience. Apparently the MPs looked inside themselves and found - or claimed to have found - a conscience. It must have taken some digging.

They have now signed up to something which actually makes it illegal to reintroduce the death penalty.

So here's how they work the dodge : when an issue can be represented to the masses as being terribly, terribly complicated - say, the EU - then the MPs say they don't have to represent their constituents' views because us riff-raff below stairs are too dim to understand the issue.

But what about the issues of conscience, then? Surely these are tailor-made for the MPs to represent their constituents' consciences? Nope. They choose their own consciences instead.

Heads they win, tails we lose.