Should the veil be banned?

[Scot22]

Should the veil be banned?

YES, YES, YES

Absolutely. It is yet another manifestation of being different,and unapproachable. I would never ask someone in a veil/burque for directions.
Tried it once,and she just waved me away without speaking.
Last night on TV,a news reporter approached a woman wearing a burque introducing himself as being from the BBC. She stared,and in response to his outstretched hand of greeting put her hand out but immediately withdrew it,and hurried away into the crowd.
He was conducting an unscientific poll on attitudes to the forthcoming slashing of government spending.
Everyone else had plenty to say!

 

[Cobalt Blue]

With respect to all the Americans posting in this thread, you have absolutely no concept of the Muslim problem in the UK. 75% of Muslims living here want Sharia law to be introduced. We have no idea of the percentage who tacitly support the atrocities carried out in their name, but by the lack of any vocal objections on their part, we can hazard a guess.

The government here should grow a spine, stop kowtowing to radical Islam and take a leaf out of France, Belgium and Switzerland's book and take a harder line on their blatant contempt for all humanistic principles. Islam is a voluntary lifestyle choice, not something in one's DNA. It is a cultural-social ideology dominating all aspects of life. And like many violent totalitarian movements, its primary objective is to dominate all those within its reach and suppress all other ideologies, movements and beliefs in its path. The fact that it is, essentially, a seventh century death cult makes it different from other 'religions'.

Of course the burka should be banned here, it is not even something required in most Islamic states. It is worn on our streets as a highly visible 'two fingers' to everything English, and particularly we infidels. Americans would do well to wake up and smell the coffee in this respect.

Well, as soon as we start seeing a rash of suicide bombings by burka wearing women in the UK ...

Already happened: One of the bombers was caught [I seem to recall at Birmingham airport..]wearing the full female get-up.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's still discriminatory and highly bigoted even if it's out of fear or your supposed "safety", as if religious extremists from any religion are going to stop trying to attack others once veils are banned. Considering that the mass amount of terrorist attacks are conducted by men in regular clothing, to target women and the veil for a cheap sense of security makes no sense at all.

What's next, the banning of underwear? I mean we did have someone trying to detonate an explosive that he hid in his Hanes. Or how about casual shoes now that someone tried to detonate explosives out of those?

In private establishments, be as openly discriminative as you'd like. But in the public eye, let people live their lives without your involvement. If they're not breaking any laws, then why should you care about it?

 

[vince]

With respect to all the Americans posting in this thread, you have absolutely no concept of the Muslim problem in the UK. 75% of Muslims living here want Sharia law to be introduced. We have no idea of the percentage who tacitly support the atrocities carried out in their name, but by the lack of any vocal objections on their part, we can hazard a guess.

I'd like to see some independent research or polling data to back up or claim about 75% of Muslims living In the UK wanting Sharia law to be introduced, because I think you pulled that number out of your ass.

So you think that terrorists act in the name of all Muslims? I have many, many Muslim friends who would vehemently disagree.

The government here should grow a spine, stop kowtowing to radical Islam and take a leaf out of France, Belgium and Switzerland's book and take a harder line on their blatant contempt for all humanistic principles. Islam is a voluntary lifestyle choice, not something in one's DNA. It is a cultural-social ideology dominating all aspects of life. And like many violent totalitarian movements, its primary objective is to dominate all those within its reach and suppress all other ideologies, movements and beliefs in its path. The fact that it is, essentially, a seventh century death cult makes it different from other 'religions'.

You are as full of hate as any radical Muslim. European people's racism never ceases to amaze me. They conquered, dominated for centuries, repressed and hold Muslims in contempt and are then surprised and alarmed that some of them return your hate.

I hope they out-breed you and take over.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

They conquered, dominated for centuries, repressed and hold Muslims in contempt and are then surprised and alarmed that some of them return your hate.

I hope they out-breed you and take over.

Doesn't really make sense Vince. So we are addressing centuries old inequities? Isn't that the problem, not the solution?

 

[alx]

I swear Americans have no idea with the problems we face in the UK regarding radical Islamification.

 

[mitchymo]

I swear Americans have no idea with the problems we face in the UK regarding radical Islamification.

I agree to an extent.

The guy that quoted 75% muslims want sharia law must have gotten a stat from somewhere other than where i've looked. I only forund one poll from 2006 which asked just 500 muslims and revealed 40% wanted sharia and 41% did'nt. The rest i assume were unsure, it did'nt say.

The UK has already sharia tribunals which were back-doored into existence and there is currently a campaign 'onelawforall' which includes some muslim groups who want sharia law banned along with the jewish equivalent.

A loophole allowed the sharia tribunals into being. That loophole needs closing just as the canadians did in 2005/6.

The state of Louisiana has banned sharia too.

An erosion of human rights exist where sharia is concerned because individual rights are not recognised. What on earth could possibly be wrong in maintaining a culture where religion and law are kept well apart?
Muslims who wear veils hold strict views which impede human rights and so conflict with western values, to ban the veil is not going to stop people from having such views but it would send a message. In time, the muslim population of the west might actually be able to integrate properly by sharing views on such things as equality and homosexuality instead of living alongside the rest of us in a fringe community.

 

[TomCat84]

I swear Americans have no idea with the problems we face in the UK regarding radical Islamification.

That doesn't justify violating someone's right to practice their religion in their own way and/or express themselves freely. We just have more historical experience integrating immigrants into mainstream society.

 

[TomCat84]

I agree to an extent.

The guy that quoted 75% muslims want sharia law must have gotten a stat from somewhere other than where i've looked. I only forund one poll from 2006 which asked just 500 muslims and revealed 40% wanted sharia and 41% did'nt. The rest i assume were unsure, it did'nt say.

The UK has already sharia tribunals which were back-doored into existence and there is currently a campaign 'onelawforall' which includes some muslim groups who want sharia law banned along with the jewish equivalent.

A loophole allowed the sharia tribunals into being. That loophole needs closing just as the canadians did in 2005/6.

The state of Louisiana has banned sharia too.

An erosion of human rights exist where sharia is concerned because individual rights are not recognised. What on earth could possibly be wrong in maintaining a culture where religion and law are kept well apart?
Muslims who wear veils hold strict views which impede human rights and so conflict with western values, to ban the veil is not going to stop people from having such views but it would send a message. In time, the muslim population of the west might actually be able to integrate properly by sharing views on such things as equality and homosexuality instead of living alongside the rest of us in a fringe community.

States don't need to ban sharia. The US Constitution would already ban sharia through existing amendments.

 

[FRE]

Although many Muslims may not realize it, keeping themselves separate could backfire and cause them real problems.

As most people here know, during World War II the Japanese Americans on the west coast were put into concentration camps, the stated reason being that they were security risks because we were at war with Japan. Well, we were at war with Germany too, and Germans were not incarcerated. The difference was that Americans of German descent were well integrated whereas Americans of Japanese descent had kept themselves separate. Of course the Japanese Americans should not have been incarcerated; doing so was a serious social injustice. But had the Japanese been well integrated, probably it would not have happened.

If Muslims persist in keeping themselves separate, even though they have a right to do so if they wish, they are likely to face problems. False rumors about them will lead to negative attitudes which will put them at disadvantage where employment and business are concerned. They may face hostility from their neighbors.

 

[mitchymo]

States don't need to ban sharia. The US Constitution would already ban sharia through existing amendments.

Then why are there reports online saying Louisianna and Oklahoma have?

 

[Industrialsize]

Then why are there reports online saying Louisianna and Oklahoma have?

States can pass any laws that they want. It doesn't mean they will hold up under US Constitutional scrutiny.

 

[FRE]

States can pass any laws that they want. It doesn't mean they will hold up under US Constitutional scrutiny.

And sometimes they don't.

 

[mitchymo]

States can pass any laws that they want. It doesn't mean they will hold up under US Constitutional scrutiny.

Ok, but these laws are applicable until overturned?

(and is that a supreme court or federal court decision?)

 

[TomCat84]

The difference was that Americans of German descent were well integrated whereas Americans of Japanese descent had kept themselves separate. Of course the Japanese Americans should not have been incarcerated; doing so was a serious social injustice. But had the Japanese been well integrated, probably it would not have happened.

That's absolute bullshit. Germans as a large group of immigrants had been here for over 100 years- and didnt look too different from your normal run of the mill british origin citizens. The Japanese looked different- all slanty eyed and black haired- and that helped tremendously. You have A LOT to learn about that period- even the second and third generation Japanese were put in camps, and they were as American as anybody.

 

[TomCat84]

Then why are there reports online saying Louisianna and Oklahoma have?

Because...the state governments of Oklahoma and Lousiana are dominated by far right wing Republican legislatures and governors.

 

[Industrialsize]

Ok, but these laws are applicable until overturned?

(and is that a supreme court or federal court decision?)

State laws are applicable until someone or a group(ACLU I.E) files suit to have them overturned. The order of the appeal would be a Federal District court, then Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court.

 

[TomCat84]

Ok, but these laws are applicable until overturned?

(and is that a supreme court or federal court decision?)

The US Supreme Court IS a federal court- they have final say over judicial cases

 

[mitchymo]

Because...the state governments of Oklahoma and Lousiana are dominated by far right wing Republican legislatures and governors.

Hmmm, i don't believe that is an entirely valid explanation. Norway is not dominated by far-right and has banned it.

State laws are applicable until someone or a group(ACLU I.E) files suit to have them overturned. The order of the appeal would be a Federal District court, then Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court.

Thanks for a concise answer.

The US Supreme Court IS a federal court- they have final say over judicial cases

Well now i know. I just wanted to know the name of the highest court.

 

[FRE]

Ok, but these laws are applicable until overturned?

(and is that a supreme court or federal court decision?)

It's not quite that simple.

A lower court may decide that a law is unconstitutional and that therefore it cannot be enforced. The government may then appeal to a higher court. It could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which is a federal court and is the highest court. That could take a long time and meanwhile, some courts could even reverse other courts.