I struggled to vote on this because i believe in freedom to make decisions for yourself as long as it hurts no one else. However i voted to ban it because i feel the veil makes a statement about women being unequal and that they are responsible for stopping any guy from lusting after them. Which also annoys me because it makes all us guys sound like wild animals who can't control ourselves. In the end i think as much as liberty is important so is equality and there is no equality in a society that allows women to be less, where they are raised by parents who teach them that they must cover up excessively just because of the gender they were born with.
Also there are practical issues with covering your face such as if someone with a full face veil were to rob a shop for example how would cctv be able to tell what they looked like?
"Of course" in that I should have know that's how you felt from your post or because you thinks a lot of people ind it offensive ? I'm personally staggered anyone could find a woman wearing a veil offensive but it shows how different people perceive things differently I suppose.
I know we see 'reports' of the cross of st George bring removed or the Christmas being banned and the like but does that happen I mean where that's the actual story ? Because I'll support anyone fighting against that , I can assume the legistlation isn't informed in too many places I've been because I see a host of flags especially during , Englands brief visit , to the world cup .
It is not the veil that is offensive it is the symbolism that is associated with the wearing of it and what it implies.
Well it seems taxi drivers have been banned from flying the flag, another man was stopped by police and told to stop displaying the flag, there are many reports some in papers. Can we believe the reports, are the mainstream media dodging reports as not newsworthy or inaccurate? Who knows? In at least one instance a police spokesperson has defended the reported action as regards the flag displayed in a car.
EDIT : so far it's suggested it's offensive , linked to extremism , a possible indicator of terrorist sympathies , a cause of rickets , makes people feel uncomfortable in queues, prevents acceptance and to liberate females . Pretty diverse list , maybe it is truly evil hey ?
It is a balance. On balance it symbolises too much on the negative side for too many people.
I struggled to vote on this because i believe in freedom to make decisions for yourself as long as it hurts no one else. However i voted to ban it because i feel the veil makes a statement about women being unequal and that they are responsible for stopping any guy from lusting after them. Which also annoys me because it makes all us guys sound like wild animals who can't control ourselves. In the end i think as much as liberty is important so is equality and there is no equality in a society that allows women to be less, where they are raised by parents who teach them that they must cover up excessively just because of the gender they were born with.
Also there are practical issues with covering your face such as if someone with a full face veil were to rob a shop for example how would cctv be able to tell what they looked like?
I said earlier I get the concern over women's rights as an argument and it's one that's probably worthy of debate , on the 'robbery' issue I think stats there were around 60 odd thousand robberies last time the figures were published I wonder what percentage were committed by veil wearing offenders ? I'd think probably less than 5%, I'm not sure if you agree but if you do think maybe perhaps a distraction ?
It is not the veil that is offensive it is the symbolism that is associated with the wearing of it and what it implies.
Well it seems taxi drivers have been banned from flying the flag, another man was stopped by police and told to stop displaying the flag, there are many reports some in papers. Can we believe the reports, are the mainstream media dodging reports as not newsworthy or inaccurate? Who knows? In at least one instance a police spokesperson has defended the reported action as regards the flag displayed in a car.
Really though ? Taxi driver banned from flying any flag for safety/license reasons or specifically the cross of st George ? Which man stopped from carrying the flag under what legistlation ? I am totally unaware of any legistlation that prevents the flag of the English flag . I think your certainly intelligent enough to know it fits the agenda of certain papers for example . I'm not having a go but does anybody know anybody this has happened to ? I've got mates former and current servicemen several of who got the flat from the balcony or infront of their homes and not one as ever had a issue , other than a lease that prevented anything on the balcony but the residents association waved the issue when informed the lad was serving in afghan .
Please Don't think I'm being a 'trendy liberal' I've been to funerals of lads killed by Muslim extremists overseas but how does that equate to banning a woman wearing a veil ? That's my puzzle , lads died trying to allow women in places like afghan expression but now you want to legislate what women can wear here ? It all seems a bit 'talebanny' for me .
Hey listen everybody has the right to their own opinion and this is about debate but I'm personally baffled by it.
Really though ? Taxi driver banned from flying any flag for safety/license reasons or specifically the cross of st George ? Which man stopped from carrying the flag under what legistlation ? I am totally unaware of any legistlation that prevents the flag of the English flag . I think your certainly intelligent enough to know it fits the agenda of certain papers for example . I'm not having a go but does anybody know anybody this has happened to ? I've got mates former and current servicemen several of who got the flat from the balcony or infront of their homes and not one as ever had a issue , other than a lease that prevented anything on the balcony but the residents association waved the issue when informed the lad was serving in afghan .
Please Don't think I'm being a 'trendy liberal' I've been to funerals of lads killed by Muslim extremists overseas but how does that equate to banning a woman wearing a veil ? That's my puzzle , lads died trying to allow women in places like afghan expression but now you want to legislate what women can wear here ? It all seems a bit 'talebanny' for me .
Really, yes, just as the porcelain pigs were a really. It suits certain papers agenda to report these things (and blow them up out of proportion), it also suits other papers and news outlets not to report it and to underplay an issue. Personally I think a man being told not to exhibit his country's flag by the authorities of that country when he is in that country is a major issue, probably bigger than a whale swimming up the Thames or Jade Goodey's funeral, or a distant view of Wayne Rooney visiting a hospital to have his toe examined or even wall to wall coverage of a murder trial in South Africa.
We already legislate what women can wear in public places it is an offence for anyone to appear nude in a public place. We legislate what they must cover, no big step to legislate what they should not cover.
Really, yes, just as the porcelain pigs were a really. It suits certain papers agenda to report these things (and blow them up out of proportion), it also suits other papers and news outlets not to report it and to underplay an issue. Personally I think a man being told not to exhibit his country's flag by the authorities of that country when he is in that country is a major issue, probably bigger than a whale swimming up the Thames or Jade Goodey's funeral, or a distant view of Wayne Rooney visiting a hospital to have his toe examined or even wall to wall coverage of a murder trial in South Africa.
We already legislate what women can wear in public places it is an offence for anyone to appear nude in a public place. We legislate what they must cover, no big step to legislate what they should not cover.
It's been compared to a KKK hood and now naked the comparison isn't really that accurate is it ?
As regards the flag I don't know anybody and I bet you don't that it's happened to . If it's happened solely for the reason of it being the English flag then it's an absolute disgrace more than that an outrage. The fact that , if that's happened , it's a disgrace doesn't mean that restricting what a woman in this country wears isn't .
Anyway we'll agree to differ I'm sure mate , the poll to ban it will win on here and probably be a vote winner for UKIP but they'll probably not win a seat so it'll stay as something for blokes to moan about in the pub especially now England are out . On that very note time for a beer .
EDIT: by the way having googled the porcelain pigs the story seems to be from 1998 so it doesn't seem like it's a huge everyday problem . although I am rushing and to be fair there seems to be regularly a story every couple of years , like I say agree to differ mate .
It's been compared to a KKK hood and now naked the comparison isn't really that accurate is it ?
.
They are not comparisons, they are illustrative of the fact that we do control face coverings and modes of dress by law already and that control is because of how others view the garments (or lack of them). The wearer is not afforded complete freedom and that freedom is restricted for consideration of the sensitivities of others.
They are not comparisons, they are illustrative of the fact that we do control face coverings and modes of dress by law already and that control is because of how others view the garments (or lack of them). The wearer is not afforded complete freedom and that freedom is restricted for consideration of the sensitivities of others.
It is important to note that the Council decided the flying of the flag could be in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
This is keeping me dragged in when trying to have a quick bevy but as you posted the link you'll have seen this bit
She said: "This is not about the St George's Flag it is about the combination of the flag with the words 'local driver' across it that could be saying 'British Driver'.
As for controlling of clothing or lack of it I'll say it again you seem an intelligent fella you think a KKK hood & nudity are suitable comparisons . Why not compare to Catholics wearing a crucifix , I mean it's a religious statement and I know people who wear it and there is nothing wrong with it . Certain companies ban the wearing of jewellery but imagine if criminal legislation banned it , it'd be outrageous .
Like I say I think we just have different views mate .
It might be quite cool in a burqa. Certainly few people complained when Y-fronts were all the fashion but overheating men's love spuds and reducing sperm count.
This is keeping me dragged in when trying to have a quick bevy but as you posted the link you'll have seen this bit
As for controlling of clothing or lack of it I'll say it again you seem an intelligent fella you think a KKK hood & nudity are suitable comparisons . Why not compare to Catholics wearing a crucifix , I mean it's a religious statement and I know people who wear it and there is nothing wrong with it . Certain companies ban the wearing of jewellery but imagine if criminal legislation banned it , it'd be outrageous .
Like I say I think we just have different views mate .
If it is about the combination of the flag and local driver then it is about the flag, it may not be solely about the flag but if the flag was not there there would seemingly be no issue. If the words local driver were not there it seems from what is said that there would still be an issue.
I repeat they are not comparisons. They are illustrative of how we already control modes of dress not because of how it affects the wearer but because of how it affects those who view those modes of dress.
If it is about the combination of the flag and local driver then it is about the flag, it may not be solely about the flag but if the flag was not there there would seemingly be no issue. If the words local driver were not there it seems from what is said that there would still be an issue.
I repeat they are not comparisons. They are illustrative of how we already control modes of dress not because of how it affects the wearer but because of how it affects those who view those modes of dress.
Again I maybe read it differently but the combination was the issue and dispassionately I can kind of see why, as I said earlier my friend a serviceman had a flag flying on his balcony of his pretty expensive flat. The lad was told to take it down not because it was English but because anything on the balcony "like that " breached the residents lease not that wasn't anti-English and to he fair when he raised the issue and told him he was a serviceman and the specifics they actually waived the breach and sensibly allowed it to remain,
Don't you think it is extreme wearing a burka? Don't you think it's indicative of a lot more?
If you mean extreme in , as an earlier poster did , that they are 'more religious' then you could argue that or you can argue interpretation . What do you mean by 'indicative of a lot more' ?
Can I say I'm not banging the drum for the veil , I'm not saying its a wonderful inclusive piece of attire I just don't get a lot of the 'fear' and anger that's all.
Again I maybe read it differently but the combination was the issue and dispassionately I can kind of see why, as I said earlier my friend a serviceman had a flag flying on his balcony of his pretty expensive flat. The lad was told to take it down not because it was English but because anything on the balcony "like that " breached the residents lease not that wasn't anti-English and to he fair when he raised the issue and told him he was a serviceman and the specifics they actually waived the breach and sensibly allowed it to remain,
If you mean extreme in , as an earlier poster did , that they are 'more religious' then you could argue that or you can argue interpretation . What do you mean by 'indicative of a lot more' ?
Can I say I'm not banging the drum for the veil , I'm not saying its a wonderful inclusive piece of attire I just don't get a lot of the 'fear' and anger that's all.
It indicates there will be other extreme views. More so than so called moderate Muslims.
Again I maybe read it differently but the combination was the issue and dispassionately I can kind of see why, as I said earlier my friend a serviceman had a flag flying on his balcony of his pretty expensive flat. The lad was told to take it down not because it was English but because anything on the balcony "like that " breached the residents lease not that wasn't anti-English and to he fair when he raised the issue and told him he was a serviceman and the specifics they actually waived the breach and sensibly allowed it to remain,
If you mean extreme in , as an earlier poster did , that they are 'more religious' then you could argue that or you can argue interpretation . What do you mean by 'indicative of a lot more' ?
Can I say I'm not banging the drum for the veil , I'm not saying its a wonderful inclusive piece of attire I just don't get a lot of the 'fear' and anger that's all.
So what do burkha clad veiled women fear? Why are they so angry? What are they trying to prove?.
Fact: you do not need to see a person's face in order to socialise with them.
I think you're confusing talking with someone on the telephone, with deliberately covering your face. The two are completely different.
Making the choice to cover your face is to make the unmistakable statement that you do not want to have communication with others.It is the most anti-social garment in existence.
Why not compare to Catholics wearing a crucifix , I mean it's a religious statement and I know people who wear it and there is nothing wrong with it . Certain companies ban the wearing of jewellery but imagine if criminal legislation banned it , it'd be outrageous
Symbols like a crucifix, a headscarf, a ceremonial dagger, a turban etc are simply that.....symbols. Wearing one doesn't pass judgement on a third party.
The veil does. It symbolises that the wearer believes I'm not fit to gaze upon them so as such the comparison to a KKK outfit, ridiculous as it seems, is a more accurate comparison because it too passes judgement.
Interesting ruling this. i would have bet pound to a penny that they would have gone the other way.
Will this increase calls for it to happen here? Should it happen here?
Yes it should!
All head-coverings should be banned in public places. If motorcyclists have to take their helmets off when they go into a bank or something, then it's reasonable to ask for the burqa to be removed also.
That's before you get onto the fact that these days, the burqa is a symbol of aggression and terrorism.
Just to clear up here... are you saying you believe the porcelain pigs story?
Depends what you mean by believe the story. Is it totally apocryphal the Independent seems to say it did happen, the whys and wherefores of course are the nitty gritty? Are you saying it is all untrue and the incident is imagined by the paper or falsely related to them.
I think you're confusing talking with someone on the telephone, with deliberately covering your face. The two are completely different.
Making the choice to cover your face is to make the unmistakable statement that you do not want to have communication with others.It is the most anti-social garment in existence.
So? People do not have a fundamental right to be talked to.
Depends what you mean by believe the story. Is it totally apocryphal the Independent seems to say it did happen, the whys and wherefores of course are the nitty gritty? Are you saying it is all untrue and the incident is imagined by the paper or falsely related to them.
Yes I am saying that.
As has been discussed many times on this forum the Natwest were running a marketing campaign featuring Piggy Banks. The campaign came to it's appointed conclusion and the press decided to run a Natwest Piggy banks story that was entirely untrue. The Natwest have since and continue to use Piggy Banks.
Comments
Also there are practical issues with covering your face such as if someone with a full face veil were to rob a shop for example how would cctv be able to tell what they looked like?
It is not the veil that is offensive it is the symbolism that is associated with the wearing of it and what it implies.
Well it seems taxi drivers have been banned from flying the flag, another man was stopped by police and told to stop displaying the flag, there are many reports some in papers. Can we believe the reports, are the mainstream media dodging reports as not newsworthy or inaccurate? Who knows? In at least one instance a police spokesperson has defended the reported action as regards the flag displayed in a car.
It is a balance. On balance it symbolises too much on the negative side for too many people.
I said earlier I get the concern over women's rights as an argument and it's one that's probably worthy of debate , on the 'robbery' issue I think stats there were around 60 odd thousand robberies last time the figures were published I wonder what percentage were committed by veil wearing offenders ? I'd think probably less than 5%, I'm not sure if you agree but if you do think maybe perhaps a distraction ?
Hey listen everybody has the right to their own opinion and this is about debate but I'm personally baffled by it.
Really though ? Taxi driver banned from flying any flag for safety/license reasons or specifically the cross of st George ? Which man stopped from carrying the flag under what legistlation ? I am totally unaware of any legistlation that prevents the flag of the English flag . I think your certainly intelligent enough to know it fits the agenda of certain papers for example . I'm not having a go but does anybody know anybody this has happened to ? I've got mates former and current servicemen several of who got the flat from the balcony or infront of their homes and not one as ever had a issue , other than a lease that prevented anything on the balcony but the residents association waved the issue when informed the lad was serving in afghan .
Please Don't think I'm being a 'trendy liberal' I've been to funerals of lads killed by Muslim extremists overseas but how does that equate to banning a woman wearing a veil ? That's my puzzle , lads died trying to allow women in places like afghan expression but now you want to legislate what women can wear here ? It all seems a bit 'talebanny' for me .
Really, yes, just as the porcelain pigs were a really. It suits certain papers agenda to report these things (and blow them up out of proportion), it also suits other papers and news outlets not to report it and to underplay an issue. Personally I think a man being told not to exhibit his country's flag by the authorities of that country when he is in that country is a major issue, probably bigger than a whale swimming up the Thames or Jade Goodey's funeral, or a distant view of Wayne Rooney visiting a hospital to have his toe examined or even wall to wall coverage of a murder trial in South Africa.
We already legislate what women can wear in public places it is an offence for anyone to appear nude in a public place. We legislate what they must cover, no big step to legislate what they should not cover.
It's been compared to a KKK hood and now naked the comparison isn't really that accurate is it ?
As regards the flag I don't know anybody and I bet you don't that it's happened to . If it's happened solely for the reason of it being the English flag then it's an absolute disgrace more than that an outrage. The fact that , if that's happened , it's a disgrace doesn't mean that restricting what a woman in this country wears isn't .
Anyway we'll agree to differ I'm sure mate , the poll to ban it will win on here and probably be a vote winner for UKIP but they'll probably not win a seat so it'll stay as something for blokes to moan about in the pub especially now England are out . On that very note time for a beer .
EDIT: by the way having googled the porcelain pigs the story seems to be from 1998 so it doesn't seem like it's a huge everyday problem . although I am rushing and to be fair there seems to be regularly a story every couple of years , like I say agree to differ mate .
They are not comparisons, they are illustrative of the fact that we do control face coverings and modes of dress by law already and that control is because of how others view the garments (or lack of them). The wearer is not afforded complete freedom and that freedom is restricted for consideration of the sensitivities of others.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Newton-Abbot-cabbie-loses-appeal-St-George-s-flag/story-20218931-detail/story.html
It is important to note that the Council decided the flying of the flag could be in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
This is keeping me dragged in when trying to have a quick bevy but as you posted the link you'll have seen this bit
As for controlling of clothing or lack of it I'll say it again you seem an intelligent fella you think a KKK hood & nudity are suitable comparisons . Why not compare to Catholics wearing a crucifix , I mean it's a religious statement and I know people who wear it and there is nothing wrong with it . Certain companies ban the wearing of jewellery but imagine if criminal legislation banned it , it'd be outrageous .
Like I say I think we just have different views mate .
If it is about the combination of the flag and local driver then it is about the flag, it may not be solely about the flag but if the flag was not there there would seemingly be no issue. If the words local driver were not there it seems from what is said that there would still be an issue.
I repeat they are not comparisons. They are illustrative of how we already control modes of dress not because of how it affects the wearer but because of how it affects those who view those modes of dress.
Don't you think it is extreme wearing a burka? Don't you think it's indicative of a lot more?
It's not unique to those wearing a veil/niqab
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1154211.stm
Again I maybe read it differently but the combination was the issue and dispassionately I can kind of see why, as I said earlier my friend a serviceman had a flag flying on his balcony of his pretty expensive flat. The lad was told to take it down not because it was English but because anything on the balcony "like that " breached the residents lease not that wasn't anti-English and to he fair when he raised the issue and told him he was a serviceman and the specifics they actually waived the breach and sensibly allowed it to remain,
If you mean extreme in , as an earlier poster did , that they are 'more religious' then you could argue that or you can argue interpretation . What do you mean by 'indicative of a lot more' ?
Can I say I'm not banging the drum for the veil , I'm not saying its a wonderful inclusive piece of attire I just don't get a lot of the 'fear' and anger that's all.
It indicates there will be other extreme views. More so than so called moderate Muslims.
So what do burkha clad veiled women fear? Why are they so angry? What are they trying to prove?.
I think you're confusing talking with someone on the telephone, with deliberately covering your face. The two are completely different.
Making the choice to cover your face is to make the unmistakable statement that you do not want to have communication with others.It is the most anti-social garment in existence.
Symbols like a crucifix, a headscarf, a ceremonial dagger, a turban etc are simply that.....symbols. Wearing one doesn't pass judgement on a third party.
The veil does. It symbolises that the wearer believes I'm not fit to gaze upon them so as such the comparison to a KKK outfit, ridiculous as it seems, is a more accurate comparison because it too passes judgement.
Yes it should!
All head-coverings should be banned in public places. If motorcyclists have to take their helmets off when they go into a bank or something, then it's reasonable to ask for the burqa to be removed also.
That's before you get onto the fact that these days, the burqa is a symbol of aggression and terrorism.
Just to clear up here... are you saying you believe the porcelain pigs story?
Depends what you mean by believe the story. Is it totally apocryphal the Independent seems to say it did happen, the whys and wherefores of course are the nitty gritty? Are you saying it is all untrue and the incident is imagined by the paper or falsely related to them.
So? People do not have a fundamental right to be talked to.
Yes I am saying that.
As has been discussed many times on this forum the Natwest were running a marketing campaign featuring Piggy Banks. The campaign came to it's appointed conclusion and the press decided to run a Natwest Piggy banks story that was entirely untrue. The Natwest have since and continue to use Piggy Banks.
www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1494636.htm