All I'm saying is, anything covering one's face is not generally acceptable, at this point it has nothing to do with wearing what one wants. If we thought for a moment, that there was a movement where people wore masks in public all the time, for some sort of political statement. It would be banned for the similar reasons like the burqa.
Also Colonel you're obviously trolling
Stable societies, are built around majority vote. Because back in the old days the minority was the rich and they used their power to take advantage of everyone else. That's unfair. And when I say minority just to clarify I'm not talking about people or a race, I'm talking about votes. This is why we have all these demonstrations right now in Syria and other places etc. because people are fed up of being taken advantage over by the minority whoever they might be.
The second the majority opinion is ignored that's when you start having problems and civilian upset. It sounds unfair to neglect the minority, but usually when the minority starts making a lot of noise, its because they only have their best interest in mind and refused to compromise, in those cases, neglecting the wishes of the majority, is in turn refusing the rights of the majority.
Is it fair that because a minority of people want to ban gay rights, we should let them? Is it fair that a minority of people say Israel can do whatever they want, that we should let them? It's Israel's right to protect themselves using whatever means? right? It's a conservatives right to be able to live in a society which conforms to their beliefs? No it's not. Is it not a pedophiles right to have sex with children, even in privacy and the child lets them. NO. What if it's apart of some kind of religious teaching, does it make it a religious right?. NO. Just because you want to do something, does not automatically makes it a right. Again, if you want to cover your face in public all the time, and the majority rule does not agree with it and you if don't have enough support even after having the opportunity to explain your case, then I'm sorry it does not make it acceptable, under religious grounds or otherwise. That includes masks, cloth, etc.
Most Muslim women don't even wear a burqa and some dispute even if it religious or cultural. So saying it's an attack on religious expression is vague. A hijab for example is perfectly acceptable. If they were to ban the hijab in public than that would be an obvious attack on a religious minority.
No one is banning Muslim attire, just no covering the face, Muslim or not.Unfuckingbelievable. No I'm not trolling-- this is not exactly a new idea I'm putting forward here-- and the quite obvious flaw in your argument above is that not only can the examples you cite of a minority taking away someone's rights happen, but it can (and has happened) with the majority doing the same thing, for example you cite:
Is it fair that because a minority of people want to ban gay rights, we should let them?
The reality is that this is not what's happening in the US. Every recent law discriminating against gay rights in the US has been enacted through majority rule, either through legislation or through direct ballot initiative-- California reversing their state supreme court's legalization of gay marriage being the most notable example. You're turning reality on its head.
As to some of your other points...
It's Israel's right to protect themselves using whatever means?
When it's a direct act of self-defense? Yes. Unfortunately Israel does a lot of things in the name of their "security" that are NOT really direct acts of self-defense but rather acts of aggression against the Palestinians.
It's a conservatives right to be able to live in a society which conforms to their beliefs? No it's not.
Sure it is, provided they don't violate anyone else's rights in the process-- this is known as the right of free association. However the problem is that conservatives DO have a tendency to violate other people's rights in the process, as they use the state to coerce people into following their moral code. But if people want to live in a community with their own conservative moral principles-- provided people can leave the community at will and they don't use the state to coerce compliance-- that is their right. Such things already exist-- the Amish for example or certain kibbutzim.
Is it not a pedophiles right to have sex with children, even in privacy and the child lets them. NO.
If we deemed a child capable of informed consent, then, yes, it would be their right just as much as it's a gay person's right to have sex with a person of the same sex, despite people's moral objections to it. But we don't view a child as being capable of this, so it's rape-- and if there's one thing there's surely not a right to, it's to violate someone else's rights.
The principle of majority rule is sound provided it does not trample on people's rights. Read deusvult's reply to you. And DeTocqueville while you're at it. Here's his argument in a nutshell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Might wanna hit these up too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_rightsAs for me, I'm done trying to talk sense to you. This is my last attempt. Your obstinate refusal to listen to reason is reminding me a lot of Ex-Hindu, minus his aggro, and I have no fucking desire to go through that infuriating, hair-pulling frustration again. Consider this my last-ditch effort to get you to understand the concept of freedom and natural, universal rights. If you really read through this reply, my previous replies, my links, and deuvult's reply, and make a real effort to understand, maybe, just maybe, you'll get it. If not, there's nothing more I can say or do to get you to understand.
I personally opposed the "anti-religious hatred" laws enacted in the UK as a result of lobbying by Muslim groups - notably the MCB - in an attempt to criminalize legitimate criticism of Islam and put critics of Islam behind bars where they could be "dealt with" by murderous Muslim prisioners. While such laws are in place I am firmly in favor of turning them back on their instigators eg by charging that wearing Islamic dress is an intentional symbolic display of hatred of Christians, Jews and other "Kafirs" by the wearer - which of course it is.
In other words, your views on what public policy should be is not based on consistent principle, but rather vendetta and political opportunism. Nice.
Topic: Conservative MP Philip Hollobone's bid to ban the burka