To be honest I don't care, let them wear what they want. If you fight it your just fuelling the fire.
Not being able to see someone's face has real repercussions even outside laws. Here in Europe it means that women who choose to wear something like a nuqab or burka simply can't get a job anywhere. They can't teach at a school (unless it's a Muslim school perhaps... but we don't have many of those), can't work at a bank, office or basically anywhere because they are required to show their face, would scare the children or alienate them, or form a risk for hygiene. Personally I think that those who really want to wear a nuqab or burka can do so happily in Iran or another oppressive Muslim regime, but not here in Europe. I also agree that those who utter threats like those in the pictures shown earlier deserve it to be banned as well or at least have their every movement monitored. Those anti-terrorism laws might finally have a purpose after all.
we saw what anti muslim hatred does in dudley on saturday and in april this year as well as in stoke on trent in january I can clearly see as many others can why some members of the muslim communities act the way they do after the racist Nazi English Delinquent League held thier violent protests in those places,My apologies for some of my wording IE:Use of the word Nazi My logic is we cannot repeat the mistakes of the 30's and ignor whats happening around us look what that led too. These racist people have to be stopped EDL demos have cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds to police and in damadge repair to streets and shops alike many businesses will have to close as a result losing many people there livelyhoods all in the name of racist ideology this has to stop,well done marmite for potentialy bankrupting the BNP and also well done the british government for stating they will not be planning to ban the burker as i said in an earlier post if you ban the burker then ban the balaclava as that also covers the face and is used by the criminal fraternaty to disguise thier identity Apologies for my ranting but as you will have guessed this is a subject I have very strong views about
If somebody has a problem finding a job because they're wearing a burka, that's their problem. I could go to interviews wearing just boxer-shorts and sandals, but I shouldn't be surprised to find myself politely rejected. Everyone has the right to sabotage their own interview if they want to. If that person then ends up being permanently on the dole, then admittedly there is a problem, because their choice of clothing is wasting tax payer's money. On the other hand, how many average Brits spend years (or even decades) unemployed because they're lazy? Or think they're better off on benefits rather than in a minimum wage job? Or because of some exaggerated medical disability which requires the specific physical rehabilitation of lifting pint glasses to their face? Unfortunately, part of living in civilised democracy is that we have to accept people's right to destroy their own quality of life, no matter what weapon they choose - be it drugs, alcohol, crime or burkas. So you decry a regime that insists on all women covering their hair, while agreeing with a law that requires all women not to cover their face? Hello? Irony? You cant provide freedom then force people to be 'free'. I've already made it clear why I hate seeing burkas, but if there is one thing I hate more, it's ********, unenforceable laws that only exist to waste tax-payers money and satiate ignorant Daily Mail readers. The only thing we can realistically do in this situation is to continue to find better ways of providing support and protection for any woman who is being forced to do something she does not want to do, and come down like a ton of bricks on any man who is found to be forcing it upon them. The government should take whatever money has already been wasted debating this futile issue and whatever money it would have cost to write it into law (and enforce it) - then write a big, fat check to Refuge. As for those idiots with threatening and radicalised posters supporting terrorism - we can't deport them because they're most likely British citizens. Instead, whenever there is a car accident or any other extremely violent incident, we should make them clean up the body parts. Lets see how quick they go back to supporting mindless acts of violence when they have to see first-hand exactly what it results in.
^^^ What he says. Sorry, but this is all a bit xenophobic. I cannot think of any instance where a woman wearing a burka has caused any problems so far. In any case it doesn't matter. Jean Charles DeMenezes' face was clearly visible when he was mistaken for a terrorist and shot. People don't really pay attention to the face, y'know? They see the skin colour and the dress, and they make up their minds from there. Perhaps you could post a few pictures of protests in N. Ireland while you're at it. Plenty of terrorist sympathies going on there, too. Make no mistake: what you see here is no different from football hooligans kicking each others' heads in on the pitch. Tribal creatures, aren't we all. In that respect it is interesting that you immediately assume that the people in your pictures are foreigners and talk about "their country". These people, as NuTech says, are most likely British. Rather than forcing our brand of freedom on these women, perhaps it might be worth asking why so many of them are choosing to wear the burka. It is not all because their husband wants them to. It is cultural; a statement of distancing themselves from how Western women dress, behave and are perceived in this society. Just because Western women can show their face and many other body parts besides, does not mean that they are free from prejudice, oppression and expectations by men. As Katy Price knows very well, a pair of tits can serve just as well to hide a face.
Nothing can justify what was on those placards British or not. And yes I do know that there are terroist sympathies in N. Ireland the peace is a very uneasy one there. Maybe I should have worded the bit about their country as in a muslim country. Give me tits over a berka to look at any day.
I am not a racist, I am not a member of the bnp, nor edl. i couldnt give a toss what colour, creed or race a peson is. I have muslim family members whom i get on with well, My sisters husband is muslim, and lives in leicester. He doesn't force muslim beliefs on anyone, and as was evident this weekend, he is allowing his children to make their own mind up about which faith, if any they wish to follow. My sister is CofE. ok so maybe i shouldnt have said "don't get me wrong", because it does sound like an 'i am about to ********' i made a mistake about the man in leicester, it was actually a 49year old woman. this was taken from a birmingham university website Maybe she shouldn't have had the quote from the Qur'ran, but at the end of the day, if she wants to display ceramic pigs in her window, she should be allowed to.
lol, oh and just to say my brother in law, was at a party this weekend that had a hog roast, and he didnt complain or moan about it at all. He just didnt eat any of the hog.
The depersonalisation of the woman is the same. Are we respecting her freedom of dress yet? Thank you for the link, because now we can really look at the details of the case. I wonder, for instance, if the display had caused offense if there had not been a quote of the Qur'ran right beside it --and such an interesting one at that. After all, Yaqub Khan said: "There are a number of people who keep china pigs in their houses and we have never objected to those". But he also pointed out that people believed Ms Bennett was aware of the possibility of causing offence, particularly as her house was on the main route to the Central Mosque. So you have to wonder about that display. I do not accept that ordinary Mrs. Bennett did not know the meaning of the Qur'ran quote she was putting in her window. I think she was making a statement there (although I suspect that putting it next to the pigs was possibly without forethought). I also note that Mrs. Bennett claims the complaint about the pig ornaments "was made after she went to the police to report allegations of harassment". So there was obviously already some history of friction there. The police possibly overreacted, but then again the police's primary function is to keep the peace. Perhaps Mrs. Bennett had preferred it if an angry mob had stoned her windows in protest.
perhaps she put the quote from the qur'an, after the harrasment, and the police ignored her complaint. we wont know for sure without asking her, even then can we rely on her to tell the truth? i suspect mrs bennett did indeed know the meaning of the quote. she may have originally put the pigs in the window without realising that she may cause offence, she may then have been harrassed, instead of being informed of her offensiveness( is that a word) to which she may have taken exception, so then found the quote from the qur'an and placed it next to the pigs in protest. i don't believe everyone is well educated in all religions, and this is why i said in another post that religion should be taught as an appreciation of religion, and didnt actually say ban religion from all schools( i stated that i dont believe schools should be run by religious groups in that post)
The police's primary function is to enforce the laws of the land. As far as I know, ornamental decorations in the window, whether of a religious or a porky nature, are not against the law. Harassment, however, is against the law. She should not have to choice between giving up her freedom of speech and being stoned by an angry mob. That's what laws and law enforcement are for. If I wasn't more familiar with the fact that you're a very intelligent and reasonable man, Nexxo, I'd say that a person who believes she would have deserved to have her windows stoned by an angry mob for having the wrong kind of decorations up is a person who also believes that women deserve to be raped if they go out in public wearing provocative clothing.
I don't think she got harrassed over a few china pigs. As Yaqub Khan said: "There are a number of people who keep china pigs in their houses and we have never objected to those". My point is: as it turns out this is not: This is a woman putting a quote from the Qu'ran into her window next to some china pigs, as part an ongoing history of friction between said woman and the Muslim community. Kind of paints a slightly more nuanced picture, doesn't it? The primary function of police is to preserve order (also referred to as "keeping the peace", or "keeping the Queen's peace" to mean the protection the Monarch or the State extends to its subjects) between people within a community. Officers of the Queen's peace have the right to detain a person who is creating a breach of the peace. This is not a criminal or civil offence; it exists as a legal oddity created by the Royal Prerogative. Persons so detained must be taken before a magistrate (a Justice of the Peace), who will "bind them over" in order to keep the peace, where after the person may not disturb the peace again for the appointed time, under threat of fine or imprisonment. The police will frequently use this power to break up difficult situations or minor fights; often, a perpetrator will be detained only briefly until the officers are satisfied that the fight is over. Alternatively, if alcohol is present, for instance, the offender can be held until sober enough to face the magistrate. Because a breach of the Queen's peace is not a criminal offence, people found to have broken it will not have the charge marked on their criminal record. Basically, confiscating the pigs was considered the quickest and easiest way to prevent the situation from potentially escalating into ethnic conflict. Remember that the Birmingham Race Riots (2005), in which two nights of rioting led to two deaths started with just the rumour of a rape. If the police had not intervened and some mob had, say, stoned the woman's house, and the White community had retaliated at the Muslim community, and they had retaliated back, etc. there would have been an outcry about the police's passive response to a brewing conflict that might ultimately have cost lives. Unless the police camped out in front of her house 24/7 I do not think that there is anything they could have done to de-escalate matters at that point. This is not about being right --it is about staying safe. It's an interesting way of joining the dots, although I'm not sure what picture you are getting. I do not believe that she deserved to have her windows stoned. On the other hand, if she already has a fraught history with some members of the Muslim community I wonder what she thought would happen if she started to display quotes from the Qu'ran next to a display of pigs. I think she knew full well that she would get a response of some sort. Think of it this way: if a woman wearing provocative clothing walks into a particularly nasty neighbourhood, at night, alone, would you not at least wonder about her common sense? And would you expect the police to politely but firmly escort her out of there for her own safety or would you expect them to accompany her all night like personal body guards?
ok so we don't know the full story, maybe i shouldn't have said anything at all. the point i was trying to make, is we should be a lot more tolerable than we are, muslim, christian, atheist. etc, we should not be offended by each others beliefs, we should not have to adjust our ways to accomodate others, we should just get on with our own thing. Within the laws of the land that is. if we want to call it christmas holidays we should call it christmas holidays, if we want any objects in our windows we should be allowed to have pigs or any other supposedly offensive object in our windows. is the quote ‘Let there be no coercion in religion’ so wrong, after all, coercion means the act of compelling by force of authority. so she effectively said let there be no force used in religion
I totally agree, actually. And if women want to wear burka's we should just let them get on with it. It wasn't the pigs that were offensive. It was the quote from the Qu'ran being displayed in the context of pigs by someone who has a history of ongoing friction with the Muslim community. God is in the details.
i agree if they want to, but there is a history of women being forced to wear them by their husbands/fathers because of religion. there are circumstances where i feel they should not be worn, but only the full face ones, anyone in public office, anyone going through security, should have their face clearly visible, teachers should have their faces clearly visible.
it comes down to a question answered by Benjamin Franklin - would you rather have freedom, or temporary safety? The safe thing to do is allow people to bully you, giving up your own freedom due to fear of illegal violence against you. The right thing to do is stand up for your freedom. It's a similar situation... people could argue that wearing sexy clothing is provoking rapists into committing a crime, the same way they could argue that displaying certain decorations is provoking muslims into committing a crime. However, wearing sexy clothing or displaying certain decorations is not against the law. Doing so does not provide a justification for violence committed against you. They don't have to accompany her, but they have no right to infringe upon her freedoms by forcing her to leave the area. If another person chooses to attack her, it is the responsibility of the police to arrest the criminal, and do what is in their reasonable power to protect her. Maybe it is my American ideology, but the police cannot infringe upon people's freedoms, only defend those freedoms against those who wish to take them away. In this case, Mrs. Bennett decided to exercise her free speech in a non-violent manner, completely within the boundaries of the law. If others choose to respond to her with violence, it is fully their choice, and they should be held wholly responsible for it. Would you have told Martin Luther King Jr. that he shouldn't protest in Washington because it would put him in danger?
I know, but forcing them to not wear burkas is not an answer to them being forced to wear them. That's an interesting point for debate. Remember the full-body X-ray devices that are being trialed at airports? The ones that kind of make you appear naked? There has been a lot of reservation about children being screened like that. There also has been the notion that perhaps women should be screened by female staff only. I mention this to point out that we all have our boundaries when it comes to privacy and security. They are just in a different place. I think that there are solutions to such problems. Teachers should really not have a problem taking off the burka when in the presence of children (of either gender) and female teaching staff, so I'm not sure what the problem is. But otherwise: if the job requires an exposed face, they're simply not eligible for the job. No problem.
He also said: "If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians?" Benjamin Franklin was a man who knew what was going on. His nation was involved in a civil war with Britain, which was bloody and messy and many innocents lost their lives. He also confronted the casual massacre of native Americans. It is nice to have principles, but as Jesus graphically demonstrated, you can get killed for them. And many innocents can go down in your wake. The police doesn't care about your little blow for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Their job is to keep the peace. No, but it does not exonerate your own stupidity either. The pig lady was deliberately provocative. Wearing sexy clothing in certain areas and contexts (whether a dodgy neighbourhood or a professional setting) is likely to create a certain response and make people view and treat you in a certain way (I mean, just look how people react to a burka). Not fair, but a fact of life. And if they do not happen to be around to do so, she is screwed. If she can live with that risk, fair do's. Martin Luther King Jr. was another man who knew what was going on. He knew his actions were likely to get him shot. He chose to accept that risk. That doesn't mean that his murderer wasn't guilty of his crime and fully responsible for it, and punishable by law. It just means that principles have consequences and he knew and accepted it. Nobody has the right to harass Mrs. Bennett for her little display. But she would be a moron if she didn't think it would provoke a response. I think that was kind of the point of it. She just didn't like the response she got. But what did she expect?
I agree, but I do not feel that the police would have the right to make her take down the little display. If anyone decides to commit violent acts against her because of the display, arrest them and throw them in jail, or deport them if they are not UK citizens. On this side of the pond, the job of the police is to defend the Constitution and enforce the laws of the land. Generally, that coincides with keeping the peace, but if it doesn't, the police will prioritize the law over the peace. I haven't heard many cases like this in the States, but I know for a fact that if someone is making a nonviolent protest that may incite violence against them, the police will protect the protesters, not force the protesters to go home and be quiet. I am not Jewish, but I grew up in an area with a very large Jewish population. Because of this, a bunch of idiots called the Westboro Baptist Church decided to surround the local public high school where most of the Jewish children attended, and carry around signs and shout slogans proclaiming that God caused 911 to punish America for its tolerance of Jews and homosexuals. AFAIK, these are the same folk who go around harassing the family members of US soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan during the funerals. A bunch of bigots who aren't worth the air they breathe. However, when they protested, the police were there to make sure that nobody committed violent acts against them. They could not legally prevent the WBC from holding the protest. That's the trade-off that comes from living in a free country. You are free, but so is everyone else, and they WILL do things that offend you. They WILL do things that make you are unhappy. It's a small price to pay for freedom, and it shocks me that people refuse to. Most are hypocrites, who want to be free to do whatever they want, but do not want others to be free to do things that they find offensive.
