Improvements to security is a valid reason to ban something if the thing you are banning is causing significant security issues. However burqas are not causing significant security issues. I would say that masks cause a higher security risk than burqas, as do scarves and baseball caps. So no, burqas do not currently come within the "security issue" category.
Oh really? So people cannot hide anything under them more easily for instance, it is not easier for them to pretend to be someone else either. Not to mention the issues that come with searching niqabiyyas because of the risks of making them lose their 'modesty'...
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When I was a kid there was a local woman with a massive growth on her face. It covered the entire left side of her face + crept slightly over to the right. I found it impossible to talk to her because it freaked me out. That was MY problem. If I could have seen past the physical attribute I might have found a lovely person.
How absurd.... Could that woman help having a growth on her face? Could she take it off when she felt like or did she just put it on to preserve her modesty and freak you out? If not then you cannot compare.
When you talk to someone with a burqa it is still easy to hear when they are annoyed, angry, happy, laughing. A person's entire body talks body language when they move, not just the face. You can also easily pick up different tones in their voices etc.
It still does not beat the benefits of being able to see the face.. You might as well blind me and tell me I don't need my eyes because I can still go about with the remaining for senses.
When I did my Arabic course there was a woman there who wore the gloves and everything. I've only ever seen her eyes and the bridge of her nose. At first I was uncomfortable by it, but it only took a short time of talking to her to get over it. Sure I always saw the burqa and wondered what she looked like beneath it, but then I'd have also always wondered what that woman would look like without the disfigurement to her face too.
All the more reason why we should not let people take advantage because of genuine cases like hers. I personally would prefer talking to a disfigured face than a covered one, but that is just my preference.
In short, you can't tell who's nice just by looking at their face.
It still helps. Lets face it, when the person is covered there are even more things I cannot tell.
I am not saying YOU can relate in the same way. I am telling you that *I* can, because I made an effort and discovered how easy it is.
Well then good for you. When I talk to someone I feel far more comfortable associating the words with the face and knowing who the person is. I tend to get the sneaking feeling that people who address me with their face covered are trying to hide something and I don't bend my rules for anyone. If she is doing it to preserve her so called modesty then I would find that insulting because it would mean that she thinks that I cannot control my urges or that she presumes that I find her attractive when it might not be the case.
I'd say the probability that the woman doesn't even speak English is the biggest barrier. If the burqa is a "Do not talk to me" sign for some people it doesn't mean it is for them all. I've only met one woman in a burqa who didn't want to talk to me - that was her problem as an individual - it wasn't mandated by her clothing.
I was not implying it was a 'do not talk to me' sign. I was referring to the visual barrier. If someone doesn't want to be seen then why bother going out in the first place?
I'm not going to go into some pointless discussion about it. I think most people can tell the difference between subjective and objective facts. Even those who believe in these fairy tales know that what they believe is subjective, otherwise everyone else would believe them. Gravity is a subjective fact.
No they think that it is objective and that the non believers do so out of ignorance or out of spite or malicious intent. Gravity exists and can be demonstrated, but is it the pull of the mass because Yahweh/Allah/the Loch ness monster
has made it so and is proof of his presence?
I wouldn't want to convince them of anything, I'd want to ensure that their children are not denied the facts of observed reality when being raised. As for taking their kids away from them; whatever it is the government currently does to ensure that all children receive an education would be suitable as long as it works.
So you would agree with the government taking kids if necessary. That's clarified then.
And it is a tradition based on indoctrination. The Catholic church by me has pictures of saints on the walls, pictures of the pope, crucifixes with Jesus on them, images of Mary, and so on. If you cannot see that is indoctrination then I see no point in discussing anything with you.
Ummm yeah... It's a church, what else is it supposed to have? Pictures of Sunny Leone? All religions and ideologies involve indoctrination in the end, otherwise they wouldn't survive.
Okay, that's just too pathetic. If you don't know what indoctrination is that's your fault, it's not up to me to rectify it.
How can I call it indoctrination when all we did was hear the priest waffle about verses and about what Jesus did and lessons one could learn from him, just once a week ? There was no drilling in our heads or any pressure to believe it. Again your army also does this just for the sake of preserving an old tradition, is that also indoctrination? Where do you draw the line?
Topic: Conservative MP Philip Hollobone's bid to ban the burka