Scot Dutchy wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

On your second question, medical exemptions apply but pastiness might not qualify. Still, you have roofs on your public buildings so sufficient shade should be available when you are indoors or underground or whatever.

And the reasoning behind the ban in public buildings is waffle at best. Again you can have security be authorized to check identification and thus the woman and/or person is allowed to place their head covering back on.

Facial contact is required and have a guess for Will. These include social service offices.

Scot Dutchy wrote:FFS we have explained it. Facial contact which all important when dealing with benefit claims etc. That is our culture ok?

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

ED209 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

Medical exemptions apply, as has been pointed out countless times.

ED209 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

This is far too stupid a question to possibly consider answering.

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:FFS we have explained it. Facial contact which all important when dealing with benefit claims etc. That is our culture ok?

Pretty uncivilized. Only in the Netherlands I suppose.

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

You could wear that on the street but entering a building you would have to remove it.

Why?

What about burn victims or people with deformities and disfigurations?

Medical exemptions apply, as has been pointed out countless times.

Why? If medical exemptions can be applied than it is a silly and unnecessary law. Do you demand people to carry authenticity of their medical exemption? Do you require a separate ID card that says, "I have a medical condition therefore I can wear this head covering?"

The more you explain it the more Big Brother it sounds.

Ban the Burqa

By MONA ELTAHAWY
Published: July 2, 2009

NEW YORK — I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.

We must not sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness or in the name of fighting a growingly powerful right wing that Muslims face in countries where they live as a minority.

As disagreeable as I often find French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he was right when he said recently, “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” It should not be welcome anywhere, I would add.

[...]

It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified.

[...]

A bizarre political correctness has tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to women’s rights. One blogger, a woman, lamented that “Sarkozy’s anti-burqa stance deprives women of identity.” It’s precisely the opposite: It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.

Nicko wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The_Metatron wrote:With such a ban, in the Netherlands, people may not make half of their population appear in public as non-persons, as property.

Despite the fact that before the ban people (by which you mean Muslims) could not make half of "their" population appear in public as non-persons, as property without a veil either. Name a means by which one Muslim could force another to wear a veil and you will be naming an act already prohibited by law before the veil ban went into force.

The only thing this law affects is women choosing to wear the veil. If the men in her life were abusive before the law was passed, they'll still be just as abusive now.

Not that I don't agree that there is a public interest in establishing the identity of a person engaged in public action. I largely agree with the way this law has been enacted (wear the veil if you like, just don't expect to have any interaction with a business or government department without revealing your identity). But please don't pretend that it will stop abusive sexist degenerates who formerly used force and threats to control the women in their lives from currently using force and threats to control the women in their lives.

I understand that you see the veil as a dehumanising garment. Please try and understand that many of the women who wear it do not.

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

Strontium Dog wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

ED209 wrote:

And even then people should be able to wear helmets and masks inside hospitals, schools and public transportation

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for the safety of patients, children or passengers (not to mention staff and assets).

and how exactly does it compromise the safety of any of those?

They hide Muslamic ray guns in their mouths, Will

ED209 wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

ED209 wrote:On your second question, medical exemptions apply but pastiness might not qualify. Still, you have roofs on your public buildings so sufficient shade should be available when you are indoors or underground or whatever.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Who speaks for the property?

In the Netherlands women have the right to choose whom speaks for them and don't need men to presume to tell her she is not property so don't wear certain clothing

Pulsar wrote:See the link for the entire article. Mona Eltahawy recently published her book "Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution"

HughMcB wrote:

ED209 wrote:

HughMcB wrote:I live in Canada where periodically I have to leave the house looking like something out of mortal combat or I might get my nose frozen off. Would this sort of thing be illegal? Or are targeting a specific group'?

What happens if I want to put a shemag over my face in the hot summer months because my pasty Irish skin can only deal with clouds and 17 degrees?

This has been covered countless times already.

You can wear what you like in the street, just not in public buildings. You have heating in your schools, yes?

I read "public transit" and in Canada I'd love to see you get on a tram when it's -30C outside and strip off your layers. They'd peel you off the seat with a snow shovel. ..

tuco wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:It's complicated. What speaks strongly to me about such a ban is it defines what people may do in a society. With such a ban, in the Netherlands, people may not make half of their population appear in public as non-persons, as property. Whatever those who such a ban affects may think, the ban prescribes what they may do (or, in this case, not do), at least in public.

It says to me: "Here, in the Netherlands, all of us are people. None of us are property. Behave accordingly."

Covered person is still person.

tuco wrote:But .. lets do some social work then. The article mentions:

Only a few hundred women in the Netherlands are thought to wear burkas, most of them only occasionally.

I don't know the situation in the Netherlands, but these people tend to be segregated/tend to segregate so it may be good idea to have enough social and street workers in area anyway. Talk to the women. Find property. This is human approach. Individual.

ED209 wrote:It's a little known fact that NL laws are not written for, and do not actually apply in, Canada.

ED209 wrote:You might as well say "take my helmet off when I walk into a nursery? I'd like to see you take your helmet off on the surface of Mars " but please don't because you'll only give will ideas.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Peter Brown wrote:
how the hell can anybody here plead for the toleration of Islam totally eludes me

Just as it totally eludes me how you can think of over a billion people as a single monolithic entity that thinks as one
You sound exactly like a member of the English Defence League who knows not the first thing about Islam and has no
intention of understanding it either. When wallowing in the comfort zone of ignorance is so much easier to do instead