On topic, an old friend rightly points out that more credence was given by many (including yours truly) to phone polls, which turned out to be less accurate than online polls. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias?
Historically in the UK phone polls have been more accurate than online polls, so the bias is understandable
Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?
The proposed short Bill says something like "Following the referendum result this House gives permission for the Government to open negotiations with the EU at a time of its choosing"
That's difficult to amend without completely changing the intent.
Append "....with the proviso that there will be no change to Free Movement", say?
The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.
That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'
Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.
Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
That argument falls down at the fact that, sadly, some women actively want to wear the burqa, and see it as as a necessity. Introduce a ban and they will exclude themselves from society, with no male coercion involved.
It'd be a real problem, and one any ban would have to try to address.
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
On topic, an old friend rightly points out that more credence was given by many (including yours truly) to phone polls, which turned out to be less accurate than online polls. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias?
Possibly some confirmation bias, but until this year we would all have said that the phone pols were the best but expensive, and that online polls struggle to get representative samples and can suffer from political infiltration.
I think the polling industry is in a mess right now, and doesn't really know how to adjust to modern life patterns of phone and internet usage. Challenging times ahead for the industry, although it's likely an election in the next year or two probably won't be as close as 2010 or 2015 were.
On topic, an old friend rightly points out that more credence was given by many (including yours truly) to phone polls, which turned out to be less accurate than online polls. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias?
I remember commenting that maybe the online polls were more accurate, as people might be afraid to admit they were a racist leaver to a real person. They could be more honest online.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.
Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.
But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
Who is Reem Sahwil?
A girl who confronted Merkel about German's attitude to immigrants. Some connect this with Merkel's abrupt change in policy a couple of months later.
OT -- top greyhound -- second-favourite for Derby -- kidnapped
THE greyhound world has been rocked by the news that Clares Rocket, arguably the fastest greyhound seen for many years, has been abducted from the kennels of trainer Graham Holland in Tipperary.
On topic, an old friend rightly points out that more credence was given by many (including yours truly) to phone polls, which turned out to be less accurate than online polls. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias?
Possibly confirmation bias but at least as likely to be historical bias given the respective performance of the two at the 2015GE
The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.
That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'
Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.
Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
That argument falls down at the fact that, sadly, some women actively want to wear the burqa, and see it as as a necessity. Introduce a ban and they will exclude themselves from society, with no male coercion involved.
It'd be a real problem, and one any ban would have to try to address.
True. But that's no reason for not banning face coverings; it's just an argument for having other policies alongside to integrate these women into Western attitudes.
That's why I said any ban would have to address it. But it isn't a problem that should be swept under the carpet or ignored.
A side issue is that they're supposed to be worn at the age of puberty, if not before. That would immediately come into conflict with schooling regs, unless they're allowed to be worn in ultra-religious schools (i.e. madrassas)
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
The policies are OK as long as the fascists don't get to implement them personally?
The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.
That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'
Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.
Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
That argument falls down at the fact that, sadly, some women actively want to wear the burqa, and see it as as a necessity. Introduce a ban and they will exclude themselves from society, with no male coercion involved.
It'd be a real problem, and one any ban would have to try to address.
True. But that's no reason for not banning face coverings; it's just an argument for having other policies alongside to integrate these women into Western attitudes.
That's why I said any ban would have to address it. But it isn't a problem that should be swept under the carpet or ignored.
A side issue is that they're supposed to be worn at the age of puberty, if not before. That would immediately come into conflict with schooling regs, unless they're allowed to be worn in ultra-religious schools (i.e. madrassas)
"But is it not the Will of Allah (SWT*) that we are all born stark, raving naked?" - Grand Ayatollah Nudistani
* Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala - "Glory to Him, the Exalted"
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Yes. And a tolerant, inclusive society has its limits, even in relation to religion. Slaughter of animals for religious purposes can be banned, despite it being part of Santeria. The key is for legislation not to target one religion, but to target the unacceptable, specific damaging behaviour.
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?
The proposed short Bill says something like "Following the referendum result this House gives permission for the Government to open negotiations with the EU at a time of its choosing"
That's difficult to amend without completely changing the intent.
Although that wording wouldn't necessarily authorise invoking Article 50.
I'd suggest a single-clauser, something closer to:
"The Secretary of State is authorised to notify the European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union, according to the procedure in Article 50 of the TEU".
But frankly, any bill can be amended. I doubt that the following clause, proposed for amendment, would be no-balled:
"The government is not authorised to make any agreement in the withdrawal discussions persuant to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union which will impede Freedom of Movement of people between the United Kingdom and the European Union".
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Thanks.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
The MSM have also made the whole Far-Right shtick meaningless - everyone bar Liberal Left they approve of are now labelled as Far-Right. There's little stigma now when Trump has been called Literally Hitler and Kippers too.
One's a NYC liberal who's a passionate USphile, and Kippers are socially conservative like Old Labour - hence their inroads.
In all the years I've spent on PB - I've been rubbished for being stupid/flakey blah blah, yet I've voted/backed the winning side since I first voted in 1987 - bar 1992 when I deliberately voted LD as a protest against the whole lot in despair.
The PB poster consensus has been wrong again and again - especially so in 2016. I doubt those who continue to insult the few who dare to challenge their viewpoint will learn any lessons from it.
Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?
The proposed short Bill says something like "Following the referendum result this House gives permission for the Government to open negotiations with the EU at a time of its choosing"
That's difficult to amend without completely changing the intent.
Although that wording wouldn't necessarily authorise invoking Article 50.
I'd suggest a single-clauser, something closer to:
"The Secretary of State is authorised to notify the European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union, according to the procedure in Article 50 of the TEU".
But frankly, any bill can be amended. I doubt that the following clause, proposed for amendment, would be no-balled:
"The government is not authorised to make any agreement in the withdrawal discussions persuant to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union which will impede Freedom of Movement of people between the United Kingdom and the European Union".
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Yes. And a tolerant, inclusive society has its limits, even in relation to religion. Slaughter of animals for religious purposes can be banned, despite it being part of Santeria. The key is for legislation not to target one religion, but to target the unacceptable, specific damaging behaviour.
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
It's a problem when religion becomes culture, and abhorrent cultural practices are excused because people claim it is part of their religion. Even when other groups of the same religion don't claim such.
Religious schooling really needs examining closely in this country: is it actually a harm to society to have Islamic schools, Jewish schools, even Christian schools?
Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?
The proposed short Bill says something like "Following the referendum result this House gives permission for the Government to open negotiations with the EU at a time of its choosing"
That's difficult to amend without completely changing the intent.
Although that wording wouldn't necessarily authorise invoking Article 50.
I'd suggest a single-clauser, something closer to:
"The Secretary of State is authorised to notify the European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union, according to the procedure in Article 50 of the TEU".
But frankly, any bill can be amended. I doubt that the following clause, proposed for amendment, would be no-balled:
"The government is not authorised to make any agreement in the withdrawal discussions persuant to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union which will impede Freedom of Movement of people between the United Kingdom and the European Union".
A lot of the debate on such a Bill will be in the hands of the Speaker, who may also consider the politics of the situation.
He way well no-ball amendments he thinks are designed purely to tie the Government's hands in implementing the clear will of the People. Or he may gleefully allow as many amendments as are proposed.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
But this is what (nearly) always happens. It's the great cycle. Problems (genuine racism) cause reaction (political correctness), which results in consequences people don't like. In five years, there'll be a negative consequence of the Burka ban we are not aware of yet, and we'll rotate once more.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
The MSM have also made the whole Far-Right shtick meaningless - everyone bar Liberal Left they approve of are now labelled as Far-Right. There's little stigma now when Trump has been called Literally Hitler and Kippers too.
One's a NYC liberal who's a passionate USphile, and Kippers are socially conservative like Old Labour - hence their inroads.
In all the years I've spent on PB - I've been rubbished for being stupid/flakey blah blah, yet I've voted/backed the winning side since I first voted in 1987 - bar 1992 when I deliberately voted LD as a protest against the whole lot in despair.
The PB poster consensus has been wrong again and again - especially so in 2016. I doubt those who continue to insult the few who dare to challenge their viewpoint will learn any lessons from it.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
The MSM have also made the whole Far-Right shtick meaningless - everyone bar Liberal Left they approve of are now labelled as Far-Right. There's little stigma now when Trump has been called Literally Hitler and Kippers too.
One's a NYC liberal who's a passionate USphile, and Kippers are socially conservative like Old Labour - hence their inroads.
In all the years I've spent on PB - I've been rubbished for being stupid/flakey blah blah, yet I've voted/backed the winning side since I first voted in 1987 - bar 1992 when I deliberately voted LD as a protest against the whole lot in despair.
The PB poster consensus has been wrong again and again - especially so in 2016. I doubt those who continue to insult the few who dare to challenge their viewpoint will learn any lessons from it.
I don't mind, my team prevailed.
I hope you've made a bundle in that time on all those successful predictions!
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Thanks.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
The Digambara order of Jainest monks go back a couple of Millenia. As well as being naked they do not wash..
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
Donald J Trump Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Yes. And a tolerant, inclusive society has its limits, even in relation to religion. Slaughter of animals for religious purposes can be banned, despite it being part of Santeria. The key is for legislation not to target one religion, but to target the unacceptable, specific damaging behaviour.
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
One possibly problematic issue is that, in today's age of ever-improving facial recognition technology, insisting that people always show their face amounts to much the same thing as forcing people to carry ID cards. And we know how popular that idea is. Do we really want the state to have this much power?
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Thanks.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
But this is what (nearly) always happens. It's the great cycle. Problems (genuine racism) cause reaction (political correctness), which results in consequences people don't like. In five years, there'll be a negative consequence of the Burka ban we are not aware of yet, and we'll rotate once more.
Hopefully the process is an inward spiral to a stable end point, rather than an endless outward spiral of ever greater fluctuations.
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Thanks.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
The Digambara order of Jainest monks go back a couple of Millenia. As well as being naked they do not wash..
Donald J Trump Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
The MSM have also made the whole Far-Right shtick meaningless - everyone bar Liberal Left they approve of are now labelled as Far-Right. There's little stigma now when Trump has been called Literally Hitler and Kippers too.
One's a NYC liberal who's a passionate USphile, and Kippers are socially conservative like Old Labour - hence their inroads.
In all the years I've spent on PB - I've been rubbished for being stupid/flakey blah blah, yet I've voted/backed the winning side since I first voted in 1987 - bar 1992 when I deliberately voted LD as a protest against the whole lot in despair.
The PB poster consensus has been wrong again and again - especially so in 2016. I doubt those who continue to insult the few who dare to challenge their viewpoint will learn any lessons from it.
I don't mind, my team prevailed.
I hope you've made a bundle in that time on all those successful predictions!
I couldn't bet on Brexit as I was too close to it emotionally. Donald did me nicely
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Yes. And a tolerant, inclusive society has its limits, even in relation to religion. Slaughter of animals for religious purposes can be banned, despite it being part of Santeria. The key is for legislation not to target one religion, but to target the unacceptable, specific damaging behaviour.
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
It's a problem when religion becomes culture, and abhorrent cultural practices are excused because people claim it is part of their religion. Even when other groups of the same religion don't claim such.
A good point. Muslim women are asked by religion to cover their hair, not their entire face.
This is the usual dress for Emirati women, although some do wear the full niqab. There are also shops selling 'designer abayas' that look like elegant pieces of clothing rather than bin bags.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
Donald J Trump Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
LOL. The planes are based on the new 747-8, the old ones are 747-200s from the 1980s underneath, but heavily modified. They're getting very old now, although have very few hours on them. Trump's existing 757 is probably better equipped inside, and he doesn't see why he can't just carry on using that plane and save money!
The cost overruns are of course the various military requirements, which have to be built for only two planes. These include extra doors, inflight refuelling capability (with the 747 on the receiving end!), lots of communications stuff and some secret squirrel bits and pieces thought to include flares and chaff.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
As a country, we need to decide which battles need to be fought. Banning the burkha in public (and I agree there are circumstances where it should be banned, as in courts) seems a rather narrow battle, and not one where the problems with Islamic extremism are to be found.
Schooling seems a much bigger hit, much fairer, and might help with the burkha problem as well.
''Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
How European immigration works.....
1. Europeans let in loads of muslims.
2. They in time become European citizens.
3. There's a clampdown and they decamp to Britain.
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Yes. And a tolerant, inclusive society has its limits, even in relation to religion. Slaughter of animals for religious purposes can be banned, despite it being part of Santeria. The key is for legislation not to target one religion, but to target the unacceptable, specific damaging behaviour.
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
One possibly problematic issue is that, in today's age of ever-improving facial recognition technology, insisting that people always show their face amounts to much the same thing as forcing people to carry ID cards. And we know how popular that idea is. Do we really want the state to have this much power?
That is a modern age, first world problem. historically in village or town life, if you went outside, everyone knew who you were without the need for ID cards. For me, the problem with ID cards have nothing to do with being recognizable in public spaces.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
A blanket ban of face-coverings in public spaces is certainly more equitable, but a.) puts the law in a very intrusive place (perhaps this is something a US citizen is more comfortable with?) and b.) creates complications about how you define a "public space". Must we ban people from wearing scarves over their face walking down the high street in winter? Or are "public spaces" simply those indoors, with air conditioning?
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
A blanket ban of face-coverings in public spaces is certainly more equitable, but a.) puts the law in a very intrusive place (perhaps this is something a US citizen is more comfortable with?) and b.) creates complications about how you define a "public space". Must we ban people from wearing scarves over their face walking down the high street in winter? Or are "public spaces" simply those indoors, with air conditioning?
I certainly want to be able to wear my balaklava if it's really cold (though I generally, if not always, take it off in buildings).
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. .
You mean to say you never heard of the Former Soviet Republic of Nudistan??
Don't some Jaines go for nudism? As a religion, they've some gorgeous temples and interesting beliefs.
There are two competing theories as to how the modern Nudistani Republic came about. The first is that it was that part of British India that was partitioned for the Nudists, the other that it was where Nudists were exiled by Stalin during the Great Purges.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
A blanket ban of face-coverings in public spaces is certainly more equitable, but a.) puts the law in a very intrusive place (perhaps this is something a US citizen is more comfortable with?) and b.) creates complications about how you define a "public space". Must we ban people from wearing scarves over their face walking down the high street in winter? Or are "public spaces" simply those indoors, with air conditioning?
I certainly want to be able to wear my balaklava if it's really cold (though I generally, if not always, take it off in buildings).
Yeah, thinking of Alaska, it is not simple outside.
That is true. I don't know what proportion of women to really want to wear it particularly if the law of the country is that you can't wear it but you can wear other equally modest clothing, which does not cover your face and prevent you moving around in the way the burqa does.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
Thanks.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
The Digambara order of Jainest monks go back a couple of Millenia. As well as being naked they do not wash..
How about a bill long the lines of "This house proposes to invoke Art 50 and negotiate the best financial deal possible." Dare them to vote it down. Refuse amendments and if one passes, dissolve parliament and prepare for riots.
Mr. F, wasn't there a Stylite in Byzantium who lived on the top of a column for decades, came down once to partake in some sort of political shakeup, then went back up?
Mr. Sandpit, if I were betting fresh, then Bottas each way for the title and Alonso to Mercedes would be tempting. Wehrlein's a bit short now.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
A blanket ban of face-coverings in public spaces is certainly more equitable, but a.) puts the law in a very intrusive place (perhaps this is something a US citizen is more comfortable with?) and b.) creates complications about how you define a "public space". Must we ban people from wearing scarves over their face walking down the high street in winter? Or are "public spaces" simply those indoors, with air conditioning?
I certainly want to be able to wear my balaklava if it's really cold (though I generally, if not always, take it off in buildings).
Yeah, thinking of Alaska, it is not simple outside.
"Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.
"The companies will share 'hashes' - unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos - of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.
""We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online," the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks."
The big advantage of my cunning plan for Theresa is that if she announces it as a threat, no one can be sure if she's bluffing. As she doesn't have to announce her definite plans beforehand, she has the advantage.
'Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.'
Animal sacrifice is permitted, though, on religious grounds. It doesn't make the animals' suffering any less because they are killed in the name of some backwards ideology. If you have religious, or any other groups, that are given special exemptions from the law of the land, and are actively appeased in return for votes, then the only result is a growing and profound resentment from everyone else. You either have a society that believes in one rule of law, with a common set of values and behaviours, or you have no society at all, and you let differing groups do more or less as they please, even to the point of illegality.
Mr. F, wasn't there a Stylite in Byzantium who lived on the top of a column for decades, came down once to partake in some sort of political shakeup, then went back up?
Mr. Sandpit, if I were betting fresh, then Bottas each way for the title and Alonso to Mercedes would be tempting. Wehrlein's a bit short now.
St. Daniel Stylites. Apparently, he spent 33 years standing up on his pillar. His feet were completely ulcerated as a result.
"Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.
"The companies will share 'hashes' - unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos - of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.
""We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online," the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks."
Any betting the definition of "extremist content" will not only vary from country to country, but also expand over time?
How about a bill long the lines of "This house proposes to invoke Art 50 and negotiate the best financial deal possible." Dare them to vote it down. Refuse amendments and if one passes, dissolve parliament and prepare for riots.
Ukip majority?
I'd say that "the best financial deal possible" might cause conniptions in the more frenzied corners of the Leavosphere. How dare the government prioritise money over restricting freedom of movement?
'Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.'
Animal sacrifice is permitted, though, on religious grounds. It doesn't make the animals' suffering any less because they are killed in the name of some backwards ideology. If you have religious, or any other groups, that are given special exemptions from the law of the land, and are actively appeased in return for votes, then the only result is a growing and profound resentment from everyone else. You either have a society that believes in one rule of law, with a common set of values and behaviours, or you have no society at all, and you let differing groups do more or less as they please, even to the point of illegality.
I doubt if I share much in the way a common set of values with say, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.
Mr. Sandpit, if I were betting fresh, then Bottas each way for the title and Alonso to Mercedes would be tempting. Wehrlein's a bit short now.
I want to lay Wehrlein, he really shouldn't be odds-on, there's plenty of more experienced drivers out there who can be bought out for less than Rosberg's $15m and Wolff needs someone who will will race for wins rather than a young rookie.
Bets on the title next year are assuming that RB and McLaren don't deliver improvements to their new cars. Two favourites are Hamilton at 2.46 and Verstappen at 4.7 right now. The young Dutchman is probably too short at those odds.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
snip
I disagree. I think it is reasonable to require all people in public spaces to be identifiable in a timeframe that is consistent with public safety and security. A stop and reveal process does not accomplish that.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
A blanket ban of face-coverings in public spaces is certainly more equitable, but a.) puts the law in a very intrusive place (perhaps this is something a US citizen is more comfortable with?) and b.) creates complications about how you define a "public space". Must we ban people from wearing scarves over their face walking down the high street in winter? Or are "public spaces" simply those indoors, with air conditioning?
I certainly want to be able to wear my balaklava if it's really cold (though I generally, if not always, take it off in buildings).
Yeah, thinking of Alaska, it is not simple outside.
Halloween also a potential problem, I'd suggest.
What specious twaddle - wearing a Tony The Tiger furry costume covers your face whilst promoting Frosties on a street corner or playing a Disney Mickey Mouse host - this is about the routine public wearing of face coverings to oppress or deny female identity.
I rarely get irritated on behalf of females - this is one of them. It's the whole Your Fault For Getting Raped Because You Wore A Short Skirt stupidity. Just stop and think what you're doing to appease exactly this sort of cultural mindset.
Men would never think of wearing long sleeves to cover their biceps or trousers their thighs in case women accosted them.
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
I think this is the real problem (from a UK traditional freedoms/tolerance point of view): even if the burqa is a cultural rather than genuinely religious dictate, banning it is tantamount to religious persecution (unless, I guess, we also ban scarves, balaclavas, ski masks and any other face coverings - not sensible, let alone practical). That's not a step we should be contemplating in this country.
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
We have lot the power of humour to exert social pressure on some sectors of society. Laughing at something can be far more effective than banning or controlling. Problem is it may cause offense. And we can't do that any more be it towards a religious grouping, ethnic grouping or the sexual orientation of a group.
A pity really, as a little offense is much better than serious opprobrium and violence.
''Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
How European immigration works.....
1. Europeans let in loads of muslims.
2. They in time become European citizens.
3. There's a clampdown and they decamp to Britain.
LOL this^^^^ is soooooo true!
There are lots of Belgian-Moroccans, Dutch-Somalis, French-Algerians etc who come to the UK because its not as Islamophic as the rest of Europe and because we have faith schools and a more relaxed attitude to Mosques, Islamic clothing etc. It's interesting that German migrants are second only to eastern europeans in terms of the high numbers coming to the UK. I cant believe that Germans have suddenly decided to move to the uk en masse, maybe it's the "new" Germans, and this might increase if Merkel starts to persecute Muslims in order to get re-elected.
Im proud the UK allows Muslim women to wear the burqa or the niqab and I hope that those in continental Europe who do not want to uncover use EU free movement while they still can and migrate here.
I'm not exactly Theresa May's biggest fan but her "red white and blue Brexit" seems a harmless enough way of deflecting the masses while she has nothing in particular to say. Some people are determined to be upset by anything.
"How dare the government prioritise money over restricting freedom of movement?"
Surely leaving the EU must entail no more freedom of movement. They're inseparable - every EU bureaucrat has said so?
If Theresa fancies a bluff, who would blink first? Labour have most to lose. As I've said before, they can't know if she's bluffing. However if she had to negotiate with her cards on the table, she'd be f*cked. A little like like Jezza and his nuclear non-deterrent.
Dylan Sharpe Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
There's loads more of this to come as voters move brisk and sharply to the Right on socio-cultural issues. Brexit to Trump, Wilders to Le Pen. Happening everywhere.
Unless migration and demographic patterns change we will see evermore restrictions on Muslims in the West, as conservatives maneuver themselves, to keep the actual Fascists out of power.
But this is what (nearly) always happens. It's the great cycle. Problems (genuine racism) cause reaction (political correctness), which results in consequences people don't like. In five years, there'll be a negative consequence of the Burka ban we are not aware of yet, and we'll rotate once more.
How many Burqa clad women are actually throwing bombs ? I wonder.
''Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
How European immigration works.....
1. Europeans let in loads of muslims.
2. They in time become European citizens.
3. There's a clampdown and they decamp to Britain.
LOL this^^^^ is soooooo true!
There are lots of Belgian-Moroccans, Dutch-Somalis, French-Algerians etc who come to the UK because its not as Islamophic as the rest of Europe and because we have faith schools and a more relaxed attitude to Mosques, Islamic clothing etc. It's interesting that German migrants are second only to eastern europeans in terms of the high numbers coming to the UK. I cant believe that Germans have suddenly decided to move to the uk en masse, maybe it's the "new" Germans, and this might increase if Merkel starts to persecute Muslims in order to get re-elected.
Im proud the UK allows Muslim women to wear the burqa or the niqab and I hope that those in continental Europe who do not want to uncover use EU free movement while they still can and migrate here.
Aren't burqas and niqabs sexist? I mean the men don't have to wear them?
''Merkel's burqa ban is really quite something. What was once seen as extreme hard right policy is now suggested by the darling Mutti of European centrist liberalism.
How European immigration works.....
1. Europeans let in loads of muslims.
2. They in time become European citizens.
3. There's a clampdown and they decamp to Britain.
LOL this^^^^ is soooooo true!
There are lots of Belgian-Moroccans, Dutch-Somalis, French-Algerians etc who come to the UK because its not as Islamophic as the rest of Europe and because we have faith schools and a more relaxed attitude to Mosques, Islamic clothing etc. It's interesting that German migrants are second only to eastern europeans in terms of the high numbers coming to the UK. I cant believe that Germans have suddenly decided to move to the uk en masse, maybe it's the "new" Germans, and this might increase if Merkel starts to persecute Muslims in order to get re-elected.
Im proud the UK allows Muslim women to wear the burqa or the niqab and I hope that those in continental Europe who do not want to uncover use EU free movement while they still can and migrate here.
While there is some truth in what you say, most people born in Germany who migrate to Britain are the children of British Servicemen and women, indeed one of my cousins counts as a Hong Kong migrant for the same reason.
I'm not exactly Theresa May's biggest fan but her "red white and blue Brexit" seems a harmless enough way of deflecting the masses while she has nothing in particular to say. Some people are determined to be upset by anything.
We seemed to have reached a meta phase whereby we all comment on the assumed outrage of other people, thus generating all the smoke regardless of heat.
What specious twaddle - wearing a Tony The Tiger furry costume covers your face whilst promoting Frosties on a street corner or playing a Disney Mickey Mouse host - this is about the routine public wearing of face coverings to oppress or deny female identity.
I rarely get irritated on behalf of females - this is one of them. It's the whole Your Fault For Getting Raped Because You Wore A Short Skirt stupidity. Just stop and think what you're doing to appease exactly this sort of cultural mindset.
Men would never think of wearing long sleeves to cover their biceps or trousers their thighs in case women accosted them.
Argh.
It's nothing like the "Your Fault For Getting Raped Because You Wore A Short Skirt stupidity".
And again, you seem to ignore that some women *want* to wear them, and the consequences a ban would have on them.
Comments
But I suppose we'll have to see what it's like when he actually gets in. This dance is just the canape reception.
Let's leave that to one side for now and assume that some women do genuinely and freely choose it.
Two points: laws do change opinions. Whether laws should follow opinion or seek to change it is a whole other debate. But I think it legitimate for our laws to set out what we do or do not think acceptable as a society.
Second point, your argument might equally be used by those who want to walk the streets naked. By insisting that they can't we're somehow forcing them to stay at home. We don't, however, hear this argument being made.
Ultimately, if you live in a society, you have to conform to a certain extent with its norms and accept the consequences if you choose not to. What such a law will do is make it clear that you do not have to accept the religious/cultural norms which may be imposed/expected of you. And I think that important because the segregation and separateness of a significant part of the Muslim community is - given the extremist winds which are battering it and the need for social cohesion in a society - a problem for all of us.
https://twitter.com/RoyalStatSoc/status/806084119641935872
I think the polling industry is in a mess right now, and doesn't really know how to adjust to modern life patterns of phone and internet usage. Challenging times ahead for the industry, although it's likely an election in the next year or two probably won't be as close as 2010 or 2015 were.
I remember commenting that maybe the online polls were more accurate, as people might be afraid to admit they were a
racistleaver to a real person. They could be more honest online.THE greyhound world has been rocked by the news that Clares Rocket, arguably the fastest greyhound seen for many years, has been abducted from the kennels of trainer Graham Holland in Tipperary.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=22208924
Stud value probably in high six figures.
A side issue is that they're supposed to be worn at the age of puberty, if not before. That would immediately come into conflict with schooling regs, unless they're allowed to be worn in ultra-religious schools (i.e. madrassas)
- Grand Ayatollah Nudistani
* Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala - "Glory to Him, the Exalted"
There are equivalent alternatives to the burqa, save the covering of the face. And i would argue that the process of dressing in a manner than undermines personal identification in public spaces is a harm to society. But that is a longer debate than I have time for now.
I'd suggest a single-clauser, something closer to:
"The Secretary of State is authorised to notify the European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union, according to the procedure in Article 50 of the TEU".
But frankly, any bill can be amended. I doubt that the following clause, proposed for amendment, would be no-balled:
"The government is not authorised to make any agreement in the withdrawal discussions persuant to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union which will impede Freedom of Movement of people between the United Kingdom and the European Union".
Laws do change opinions. However, there is a danger that they could easily change them in way that are not to our advantage. One of the central planks of radical Islam is the theory that Muslims are persecuted, often because of their religion. This would just play into that. You might even end up with more people wanting to wear it as a symbol of their religion against what they perceive as persecution. I believe that's happened as a result of Turkey's ban.
For your second point: as far as I'm aware, there isn't a long-standing religion that involves going about naked. As ever. religion mucks things up.
If we want to ban the burka, we need to consider the consequences carefully and plan safeguard against them.
As for your last paragraph: the link I posted earlier shows that Muslim communities are not the only ones it applies to.
http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/scottish-fact-of-the-week-scotland-s-official-animal-the-unicorn-1-2564399
One's a NYC liberal who's a passionate USphile, and Kippers are socially conservative like Old Labour - hence their inroads.
In all the years I've spent on PB - I've been rubbished for being stupid/flakey blah blah, yet I've voted/backed the winning side since I first voted in 1987 - bar 1992 when I deliberately voted LD as a protest against the whole lot in despair.
The PB poster consensus has been wrong again and again - especially so in 2016. I doubt those who continue to insult the few who dare to challenge their viewpoint will learn any lessons from it.
I don't mind, my team prevailed.
Add at end ", subject to...."
Religious schooling really needs examining closely in this country: is it actually a harm to society to have Islamic schools, Jewish schools, even Christian schools?
He way well no-ball amendments he thinks are designed purely to tie the Government's hands in implementing the clear will of the People. Or he may gleefully allow as many amendments as are proposed.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Digambara
Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
The closest I can see a free nation being able to come to this might be a requirement that, if requested by a representative of the state (policeman?), any individual must uncover their face for identification purposes (I think this would, to be fair, require a re-design of most burqas). One might also amend legislation to permit shopholders (for example) to request de-veiling as a condition of service without being potentially guilty of hate crimes/discrimination. Any further, and we're getting into really dangerous territory.
This is the usual dress for Emirati women, although some do wear the full niqab. There are also shops selling 'designer abayas' that look like elegant pieces of clothing rather than bin bags.
https://twitter.com/TheNationalUAE/status/804666475625713664
Dan Hannan
As a direct result of Castro's policies, Cubans built the greatest financial, commercial and educational city in Latin America. In Miami.
In the same vein, in stores de-veiling would have to be a condition of entry into the store, not of service.
Religion is not a carte blanche for everything. Polygamy is banned in the US, despite Mormonism. It is unthinkable in modern society to permit a religion that espouses human sacrifice, as some religions did historically.
A ban of the burqa does not need to be just of that item - it could be presented as a ban of all clothing that prevents identification - hoodies with ski masks should be included.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38226349
That'll really cheer him up!!
Instead on May the 7th the Lib Dems ended up playing the role of Anastasia Steele to the electorate’s Christian Grey.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/this-mornings-must-read/
The cost overruns are of course the various military requirements, which have to be built for only two planes. These include extra doors, inflight refuelling capability (with the 747 on the receiving end!), lots of communications stuff and some secret squirrel bits and pieces thought to include flares and chaff.
The Wiki article on AF1 is quite comprehensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25
Schooling seems a much bigger hit, much fairer, and might help with the burkha problem as well.
How European immigration works.....
1. Europeans let in loads of muslims.
2. They in time become European citizens.
3. There's a clampdown and they decamp to Britain.
Hmm, the team mate market is quite rapidly changing. Alonso down from 9 to 7, Wehrlein just 1.5, Bottas 2.75.
http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/formula-one/next-mercedes-driver
Ukip majority?
Mr. Sandpit, if I were betting fresh, then Bottas each way for the title and Alonso to Mercedes would be tempting. Wehrlein's a bit short now.
The fight against campus censorship has begun!
Plymouth’s rival uni reacts to its ban on tabloids by outlawing ‘hateful’ bitty orange juice https://t.co/ierAi1yKQN
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-database-idUSKBN13U2W8
"Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.
"The companies will share 'hashes' - unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos - of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.
""We hope this collaboration will lead to greater efficiency as we continue to enforce our policies to help curb the pressing global issue of terrorist content online," the companies said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Tech companies have long resisted outside intervention in how their sites should be policed, but have come under increasing pressure from Western governments to do more to remove extremist content following a wave of militant attacks."
Animal sacrifice is permitted, though, on religious grounds. It doesn't make the animals' suffering any less because they are killed in the name of some backwards ideology. If you have religious, or any other groups, that are given special exemptions from the law of the land, and are actively appeased in return for votes, then the only result is a growing and profound resentment from everyone else. You either have a society that believes in one rule of law, with a common set of values and behaviours, or you have no society at all, and you let differing groups do more or less as they please, even to the point of illegality.
Mr. Sandpit, both are eminently possible.
A chap I know had a girlfriend who wouldn't have sex with him on religious grounds.
I tried to tell him that a churchyard was a lousy place to go for a date!
Bets on the title next year are assuming that RB and McLaren don't deliver improvements to their new cars. Two favourites are Hamilton at 2.46 and Verstappen at 4.7 right now. The young Dutchman is probably too short at those odds.
I rarely get irritated on behalf of females - this is one of them. It's the whole Your Fault For Getting Raped Because You Wore A Short Skirt stupidity. Just stop and think what you're doing to appease exactly this sort of cultural mindset.
Men would never think of wearing long sleeves to cover their biceps or trousers their thighs in case women accosted them.
Argh.
A pity really, as a little offense is much better than serious opprobrium and violence.
LOL this^^^^ is soooooo true!
There are lots of Belgian-Moroccans, Dutch-Somalis, French-Algerians etc who come to the UK because its not as Islamophic as the rest of Europe and because we have faith schools and a more relaxed attitude to Mosques, Islamic clothing etc. It's interesting that German migrants are second only to eastern europeans in terms of the high numbers coming to the UK. I cant believe that Germans have suddenly decided to move to the uk en masse, maybe it's the "new" Germans, and this might increase if Merkel starts to persecute Muslims in order to get re-elected.
Im proud the UK allows Muslim women to wear the burqa or the niqab and I hope that those in continental Europe who do not want to uncover use EU free movement while they still can and migrate here.
"How dare the government prioritise money over restricting freedom of movement?"
Surely leaving the EU must entail no more freedom of movement. They're inseparable - every EU bureaucrat has said so?
If Theresa fancies a bluff, who would blink first? Labour have most to lose. As I've said before, they can't know if she's bluffing. However if she had to negotiate with her cards on the table, she'd be f*cked. A little like like Jezza and his nuclear non-deterrent.
And again, you seem to ignore that some women *want* to wear them, and the consequences a ban would have on them.
How many Burqa clad women think burqas should be compulsory? I wonder.