Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 18 2010,09:33)|
|So you are saying you are ok with people walking the streets masked without knowing what their intentions are? |
Yes. You've never seen a women cover her face with a scarf (not a hajib etc, a regular old scarf wrapped around her face), sunglasses and hat on a cold winter day ? Are the police going to harass or fine her ? Of course not.
There are plenty of legal activities that might harm your relationship with an employer, family etc., and I don't believe it's any of the states business to say you can't obscure your identity to other citizens in public places.
|Especialy with the actual situation in France|
It's been many years since I was there, but I don't think means I can't form an opinion on the fundamental issues.
See, in good ol' Europe, for exemple, we consider nazi symbolism to be offensive.
The question is, where do you draw the line ? Clearly the fact that some people find something offensive isn't always grounds to ban it.
|Now, please consider the countries where burqas and niqabs are sported: public flogging, hanging or lapidation are common place for women who are suspected of adultery.|
Right, and I said earlier that the burqa is mostly a tool of oppression, and breaking down that oppressive system is a worthwhile goal. The question is whether criminalizing it is really an effective way to do it, and to what extent restricting what people wear is a defensible restraint on free expression.
Would you accept nazi symbols, uniforms...etc just for the sake of freedom?
In the US, we do. AFAIK, we have less problems with neo-nazis than many European countries. I'm not claiming this is a direct result of our different approaches to the issue: there's far too many variables make that connection. These symbols are offensive, but it's not clear that criminalizing the symbols is an effective way of reducing the influence of the organizations that identify with them. It is again a difficult problem with (IMO) no clear answer.
And yes, the US is generally prudish about nudity, but IMO that's largely a based on our own religious extremist roots.
|With the burqa and niqab, great taboos because "religious" it is totaly impossible, under threats of riots, outrage, and general condamnation by cultural associations.|
Is banning the entire thing really going to be less subject to any of this ? Given a choice between a law requiring them to show their face on legitimate demand, or banning it outright, which would they choose ?
(although I've already pointed out before that this is not the case at all)
That doesn't seem like a convincing argument. As far as I can tell, religion is defined entirely by it's adherents belief, and it's pretty clear that the some sects believe that full body covering is required or at least highly encouraged.