Europe to become a burqa free area in public?

The Waltzing Consumer

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think "it creeps me out" is a sufficient threshold for government to regulate individual decisions about what to wear. And if you don't think this is about Islamophobia, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Well fair enough, but I would argue that it is probably closer to reality then blindly blaming it on anti-islam sentiments.

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think "it creeps me out" is a sufficient threshold for government to regulate individual decisions about what to wear.

Individuals don't choose to wear them, it's forced upon them.

oscarBravo

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I simply think the government have a right in some cases to legislate on clothing and appearance. If you want to talk about that fine, if you just want to pick examples here and there, well, not interested really.

The corollary to the highlighted phrase is that the government have no right in other cases to legislate on clothing and appearance. From what I can see, the major criteria being advanced for the cases where the government has that right are to do with people demanding the right to see other people's faces (except when they can't, which is OK, as long as they're not Muslims).

I'm not seeing a coherent case for discriminating against a small group of Muslim women. If you are, fair enough.

oscarBravo

yammycat wrote: »

Individuals don't choose to wear them, it's forced upon them.

We're already back to that blanket assertion? Didn't you row back on it already in this very thread?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Waltzing Consumer

oscarBravo wrote: »

The corollary to the highlighted phrase is that the government have no right in other cases to legislate on clothing and appearance. From what I can see, the major criteria being advanced for the cases where the government has that right are to do with people demanding the right to see other people's faces (except when they can't, which is OK, as long as they're not Muslims).

I'm not seeing a coherent case for discriminating against a small group of Muslim women. If you are, fair enough.

In the actual example of the burqa. I agree that ANY woman of ANY religion and ANY ethnicity should not be allowed to walk around in public dressed in it.

yammycat

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're already back to that blanket assertion? Didn't you row back on it already in this very thread?

'blanket assertion' no pun intended

I said some might, but they are in the minority, do you believe woman being forced to wear these is not an issue ?

IngazZagni

oscarBravo wrote: »

The corollary to the highlighted phrase is that the government have no right in other cases to legislate on clothing and appearance. From what I can see, the major criteria being advanced for the cases where the government has that right are to do with people demanding the right to see other people's faces (except when they can't, which is OK, as long as they're not Muslims).

I'm not seeing a coherent case for discriminating against a small group of Muslim women. If you are, fair enough.

The system is unfair as it is. It discriminates against me already. My friend was kicked out of a shop for wearing his hoodie inside. I agreed with the security guard personally for doing this although not to my friend haha.
I mentioned this before but in the same shop about a month later there was a woman with a full face burka and not a thing was done and I think that is because the security guard would be afraid to be called racist or discriminative against this woman.

oscarBravo

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

In the actual example of the burqa. I agree that ANY woman of ANY religion and ANY ethnicity should not be allowed to walk around in public dressed in it.

That's very generous and non-discriminatory of you. It's a bit like those communities in the US who didn't want mosques in their neigbourhoods: they were equally opposed to Christians, Jews, Buddhists AND Muslims building mosques.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think "it creeps me out" is a sufficient threshold for government to regulate individual decisions about what to wear. And if you don't think this is about Islamophobia, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Its not Islamophobia since it is not a religious clothing and not in Islam at all.
And their origins came from the desserts for protection from sand storms and the likes.It was adopted as a way to control their women by extremist men who would be in Ireland considered abusive,by trying to stop their wives or gf from wearing clothes short skirts or accusing them of inviting men to look at them.Which it is control.
On top of that they are health risks Enveloping outer garments, such as the burqa, are believed to cause or worsen medical conditions in some individuals.[24] In particular, they contribute to a predisposition for hypovitaminosis D, which can lead to rickets or osteoporosis and may increase the risk of seizures in infants born to affected mothers.

The Waltzing Consumer

Laminations wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

[/QUOTE]

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I should have listened to this guy before arguing with you:D

southsiderosie

yammycat wrote: »

Individuals don't choose to wear them, it's forced upon them.

Given that there are between 4 and 5 Muslims in France, yet an estimated 2,000 wear the burqa, I don't think the forced wearing of it is a particularly widespread issue. The same article notes that in Denmark, half of the women who wore it were white European converts who deliberately chose to as a signal of their rejection of Western mores. Veiling is a much more subtle and political issue than most here are giving it credit for.

In addition, I fail to see how a ban on the burqa will somehow liberate the several hundred women who were forced to wear it. If their families are that conservative, then this ban will simply consign them to life within the confines of their own homes, which is an even more dismal prospect than the fact that they had to wear a burqa in public in the first place.

oscarBravo

yammycat wrote: »

I said some might, but they are in the minority, do you believe woman being forced to wear these is not an issue ?

If there's a problem with women being forced to do things against their will, then perhaps that's the problem that should be addressed.

Yes, I believe that some women would prefer not to wear burqas. I also believe that some women would prefer not to wear skirts. I don't think making skirts illegal is an appropriate response to this.

IngazZagni wrote: »

My friend was kicked out of a shop for wearing his hoodie inside.

A shop isn't a public place. Is there a reason that distinction isn't getting through?

southsiderosie

IngazZagni wrote: »

The system is unfair as it is. It discriminates against me already. My friend was kicked out of a shop for wearing his hoodie inside. I agreed with the security guard personally for doing this although not to my friend haha.
I mentioned this before but in the same shop about a month later there was a woman with a full face burka and not a thing was done and I think that is because the security guard would be afraid to be called racist or discriminative against this woman.

Because, for security reasons, a kid in a hoodie presents a potential threat given how most robberies in Ireland pan out that a woman in a burqa does not. Unless there are a rash of burqa-related robberies in Ireland, I think this is a perfectly logical response.

caseyann wrote: »

Its not Islamophobia since it is not a religious clothing and not in Islam at all.
And their origins came from the desserts for protection from sand storms and the likes.It was adopted as a way to control their women by extremist men who would be in Ireland considered abusive,by trying to stop their wives or gf from wearing clothes short skirts or accusing them of inviting men to look at them.Which it is control.
On top of that they are health risks Enveloping outer garments, such as the burqa, are believed to cause or worsen medical conditions in some individuals.[24] In particular, they contribute to a predisposition for hypovitaminosis D, which can lead to rickets or osteoporosis and may increase the risk of seizures in infants born to affected mothers.

You said that already.

While the origins of the garment may rest in desert culture, the current wearing of it is justified for religious reasons. There are many religious practices today that are rooted in local cultural practices (the Muslim rule about burying the dead within 2 hours, which makes sense in a hot climate, for example).

Oh, and if you are going to cite other sources, can you please use the quote function?

Dyr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Instead of her religion telling her what she's allowed to wear, she has the government telling her what she's allowed to wear.

Yay for freedom.

Actually the govt is telling her what she is NOT allowed to wear, it's still far more of a choice than what her nutty culture (not religion) allows.

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

In addition, I fail to see how a ban on the burqa will somehow liberate the several hundred women who were forced to wear it. If their families are that conservative, then this ban will simply consign them to life within the confines of their own homes, which is an even more dismal prospect than the fact that they had to wear a burqa in public in the first place.

If thats the case why not allow woman to be beaten on the streets when they do something wrong, because if the husband has to hold in his anger until she gets home he is going to beat her far worse.

IngazZagni

oscarBravo wrote: »

A shop isn't a public place. Is there a reason that distinction isn't getting through?

What are you not getting? The state can control regulations for these shops and other places. If a hotel refused someone entry for this they could easily be sued for discrimination. If there was a law on this that wouldn't happen so yes it is a valid point.

The Waltzing Consumer

oscarBravo wrote: »

A shop isn't a public place. Is there a reason that distinction isn't getting through?

Well, one could ask why you think it is fine for private companies and public institutions to not allow certain items of clothing yet you don't think it is fine for the elected government to do so? Are these banks, post offices etc., not being discriminatory towards muslim women as you would argue that other public institutions would be if they enforced similar laws.

Semi state company; no burqa = acceptable
private shop or pub; no burqa = acceptable
private bank; no burqa = acceptable
publicly owned bank; no burqa = acceptable
publicily owned street; no burq = disciminating

Why?

southsiderosie

yammycat wrote: »

If thats the case why not allow woman to be beaten on the streets when they do something wrong, because if the husband has to hold in his anger until she gets home he is going to beat her far worse.

Has all logic left the thread? What in the world are you talking about?

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

Has all logic left the thread? What in the world are you talking about?

It's the same argument you were making.

Point is just because doing the right thing will not help doesn't mean doing the right thing shouldn't be done and doing the right thing here is not to turn a blind eye to woman being oppressed by burqas

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because, for security reasons, a kid in a hoodie presents a potential threat given how most robberies in Ireland pan out that a woman in a burqa does not. Unless there are a rash of burqa-related robberies in Ireland, I think this is a perfectly logical response.



You said that already.

While the origins of the garment may rest in desert culture, the current wearing of it is justified for religious reasons. There are many religious practices today that are rooted in local cultural practices (the Muslim rule about burying the dead within 2 hours, which makes sense in a hot climate, for example).

Oh, and if you are going to cite other sources, can you please use the quote function?

You are grasping.

IngazZagni

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because, for security reasons, a kid in a hoodie presents a potential threat given how most robberies in Ireland pan out that a woman in a burqa does not. Unless there are a rash of burqa-related robberies in Ireland, I think this is a perfectly logical response.

You said it man. So it is discrimination. So because I wear a hoodie I'm a security risk! How fair is that? I would argue that most hoodie wearing teenagers don't commit crime but rather the minority. (does this sound familiar? :rolleyes: )

What's stopping a criminal from wearing a burka as a disguise? A small man could also wear this given the nature of the outfit. Also just because something hasn't happened that much in the past doesn't mean it won't in the future. Again I point to forward planning/thinking.

oscarBravo

IngazZagni wrote: »

What are you not getting? The state can control regulations for these shops and other places.

The state doesn't dictate that motorcycle helmets shouldn't be worn in banks. Banks' own private security concerns dictate that. Using security concerns of private businesses as precedent for control over public attire is a logical non sequitur.

If a hotel refused someone entry for this they could easily be sued for discrimination. If there was a law on this that wouldn't happen so yes it is a valid point.

There's no law on wearing motorcycle helmets in banks. Nobody is suing banks for discrimination against motorcyclists.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well, one could ask why you think it is fine for private companies and public institutions to not allow certain items of clothing yet you don't think it is fine for the elected government to do so?

Because there's a logical reason for a bank to prevent people from walking in with their faces covered. The fact that a bank is allowed to refuse admission to someone wearing a helmet doesn't mean that it's illegal to wear a helmet in public, or that it should be.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

You are grasping.

If wearing a burqa was about the weather and not religion, then there would be no reason to wear it in Northern Europe. Saying that it is not about Islam is ridiculous.

And again, it would be useful if you would actually cite the sources that you are cutting and pasting from.

looksee

I don't think this has anything to do with 'Islamophobia'. If it did I would object to mosques, to any Muslim clothing other than the full face veil, and I don't.

I also don't think it is relevant why women wear it - whether they are forced to wear it or not is not any one else's business. If your church says you have to cover your hair (as Mennonite women do, for example) or your husband says - that skirt is too short, then it is your business whether you obey or not.

However if the full face covering goes against cultural practise - it is part of Western culture that it is considered courteous to be able to see each other's faces in 'face to face' conversation - and incidentally creates other issues such as security and an ability to engage in your employment (teachers for instance) - then it seems to me that rather than create individual arguments the reasonable thing to do is say, look this is the way we do things, get on with it.

southsiderosie

IngazZagni wrote: »

You said it man. So it is discrimination. So because I wear a hoodie I'm a security risk! How fair is that? I would argue that most hoodie wearing teenagers don't commit crime but rather the minority. (does this sound familiar? :rolleyes: )

Most people wearing motorcycle helmets are not bank robbers. But because a small minority are, you cannot wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank. Most people see this as rational.

If a shop owners has been robbed by hoodie-wearing hoodlums on numerous occasions, then I see no reason why they wouldn't ask people to take the hoodie off when in the store.

IngazZagni wrote: »

What's stopping a criminal from wearing a burka as a disguise? A small man could also wear this given the nature of the outfit. Also just because something hasn't happened that much in the past doesn't mean it won't in the future. Again I point to forward planning/thinking.

France has had a large muslim population for the last half-century, yet burqa-clad crime is essentially non-existent. The crime threat is not the justification being used to enact the ban - it is purely for reasons of perceived cultural threat.

oscarBravo

looksee wrote: »

...it is part of Western culture that it is considered courteous to be able to see each other's faces in 'face to face' conversation...

Says who?

What other laws are on the statute books to enforce "Western culture"?

IngazZagni

oscarBravo wrote: »

The state doesn't dictate that motorcycle helmets shouldn't be worn in banks. Banks' own private security concerns dictate that. Using security concerns of private businesses as precedent for control over public attire is a logical non sequitur. There's no law on wearing motorcycle helmets in banks. Nobody is suing banks for discrimination against motorcyclists.

Because there's a logical reason for a bank to prevent people from walking in with their faces covered. The fact that a bank is allowed to refuse admission to someone wearing a helmet doesn't mean that it's illegal to wear a helmet in public, or that it should be.

Why is this? Because under STATE LAW, it gives banks and certain other private institutions the right to have these measures of security and as they are approved by the state, you can't sue. The same can't be said for hotels. That's why a hotel generally would not stop someone wearing a burka from entering because they don't have the right to do this. I'm unaware of any individual instances where this isn't the case but I'm open to correction.

oscarBravo

IngazZagni wrote: »

Why is this? Because under STATE LAW, it gives banks and certain other private institutions the right to have these measures of security and as they are approved by the state, you can't sue.

Cite the relevant legislation, please.

southsiderosie

looksee wrote: »

I don't think this has anything to do with 'Islamophobia'. If it did I would object to mosques, to any Muslim clothing other than the full face veil, and I don't.

I also don't think it is relevant why women wear it - whether they are forced to wear it or not is not any one else's business. If your church says you have to cover your hair (as Mennonite women do, for example) or your husband says - that skirt is too short, then it is your business whether you obey or not.

However if the full face covering goes against cultural practise - it is part of Western culture that it is considered courteous to be able to see each other's faces in 'face to face' conversation - and incidentally creates other issues such as security and an ability to engage in your employment (teachers for instance) - then it seems to me that rather than create individual arguments the reasonable thing to do is say, look this is the way we do things, get on with it.

Rules for employment are not the same as what people choose to wear in their personal lives. Employers are free to set whatever requirements they like in terms of dress code.

I don't think we can legislate for courtesy. There are plenty of things that people do that I would consider rude, but that is a far cry from legislating against that kind of behavior. It is considered polite in Western culture to make eye contact with people when you meet them, and a failure to do so may make people uncomfortable, but nobody would ever dream of passing a public law saying that you had to make eye contact with people when you talked to them.

IngazZagni

southsiderosie wrote: »

Most people wearing motorcycle helmets are not bank robbers. But because a small minority are, you cannot wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank. Most people see this as rational.

If a shop owners has been robbed by hoodie-wearing hoodlums on numerous occasions, then I see no reason why they wouldn't ask people to take the hoodie off when in the store.

So are you saying that if a shop was robbed by a burka wearing person they would have the right to refuse them entry or tell them to remove the veil? No they wouldn't and that's the problem!

southsiderosie

IngazZagni wrote: »

So are you saying that if a shop was robbed by a burka wearing person they would have the right to refuse them entry or tell them to remove the veil? No they wouldn't and that's the problem!

Yes they would. Restaurants have the right to refuse entry based on what people wear. So do nightclubs. So do shops. Private entities can make these kinds of rules. But just because you cannot wear trainers in a nightclub or at work does not mean that you should not have the right to wear them on the street, and that is the public/private distinction that people have made - repeatedly - on this thread. I do not understand what is so complicated about this.

johnmcdnl

a lot of Muslim women believe they shouldn't show there faces in public... if they don't wear a burkha will these women be forced to stay indoors 24/7 basically if they adhere to their beliefs...

true the women are "forced" to wear it by their religion but Catholics are "forced" to go to Mass every Sunday... should Mass become illegal because it's being "forced" on Catholics.. or not eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday... should all Catholics be forced to abandon their beliefs and be forced by law to eat meat on these days...

Of course these examples are slightly different but it's the same principal in some degree is it not...

These women belief they have to wear their burkhas to be respectable in the eyes of Allah or whatever reason they wear it for - and by banning it if they really want to continue to be a good Muslim as they see it they just won't ever leave their house and will probably believe they are doing good in the eyes of Allah by refusing to go out without a burkha...

isn't this situation worse than having a few women wearing burkhas around the streets... and what's worse again is that no one will realise that these women are locked in their own homes basically because would you notice that these women weren't on the street anymore...

Whenever I'm in Dublin city center say - a pretty busy spot so the likelihood of seeing a woman in a burkha is moderately higher than a lot of other places - I might see 2-3 women in burkhas max - would I notice that these women no longer came out in public or would I just assume they came out without burkhas and pass no notice at all...

I don't agree with the burkha or with any religious ideals really - but for the sake of the few women who do adhere to these beliefs and will continue to do so after a law like this is introduced, I don't think the burkha should be banned...

The Waltzing Consumer

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes they would. Restaurants have the right to refuse entry based on what people wear. So do nightclubs. So do shops. Private entities can make these kinds of rules. But just because you cannot wear trainers in a nightclub or at work does not mean that you should not have the right to wear them on the street, and that is the public/private distinction that people have made - repeatedly - on this thread. I do not understand what is so complicated about this.

Well because the people who are making this distincition are arguing that the state would be anti-Islam or anti-democatic if they banned the burqa in public. Are these private entities or in some case public entities anti-democratic or anti-islamic in their practices too then?

IngazZagni

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cite the relevant legislation, please.

No I won't because it will take too long to find. You can find it on citizens info though.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/

My grandfather was a (local) bank manager and father also works in the same profession (you'll just have to take my word) and having asked my father just there, he said they have the right under law to refuse anyone entry for whatever reason they deemed necessary.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes they would. Restaurants have the right to refuse entry based on what people wear. So do nightclubs. So do shops. Private entities can make these kinds of rules. But just because you cannot wear trainers in a nightclub or at work does not mean that you should not have the right to wear them on the street, and that is the public/private distinction that people have made - repeatedly - on this thread. I do not understand what is so complicated about this.

These places still face a risk of discriminating on religious grounds though. Stopping someone from entering a niteclub because they are wearing runners is fine as long as the dresscode was advertised. However stopping someone from entering who is wearing a burka would be far more risky as I doubt it would be advertised "no burkas" and if they did, there would be uproar I'd say.

caseyann

johnmcdnl wrote: »

a lot of Muslim women believe they shouldn't show there faces in public... if they don't wear a burkha will these women be forced to stay indoors 24/7 basically if they adhere to their beliefs...

true the women are "forced" to wear it by their religion but Catholics are "forced" to go to Mass every Sunday... should Mass become illegal because it's being "forced" on Catholics.. or not eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday... should all Catholics be forced to abandon their beliefs and be forced by law to eat meat on these days...

Of course these examples are slightly different but it's the same principal in some degree is it not...

These women belief they have to wear their burkhas to be respectable in the eyes of Allah or whatever reason they wear it for - and by banning it if they really want to continue to be a good Muslim as they see it they just won't ever leave their house and will probably believe they are doing good in the eyes of Allah by refusing to go out without a burkha...

isn't this situation worse than having a few women wearing burkhas around the streets... and what's worse again is that no one will realise that these women are locked in their own homes basically because would you notice that these women weren't on the street anymore...

Whenever I'm in Dublin city center say - a pretty busy spot so the likelihood of seeing a woman in a burkha is moderately higher than a lot of other places - I might see 2-3 women in burkhas max - would I notice that these women no longer came out in public or would I just assume they came out without burkhas and pass no notice at all...

I don't agree with the burkha or with any religious ideals really - but for the sake of the few women who do adhere to these beliefs and will continue to do so after a law like this is introduced, I don't think the burkha should be banned...

Well then they should move to a place where it is acceptable and feel happy there.

looksee

oscarBravo wrote: »

Says who?

What other laws are on the statute books to enforce "Western culture"?

Well what about laws preventing genital mutilation?

What about laws that limit styles of housebuilding - would I be allowed to put a minaret on my semi-d?

What about laws that control work environments (its legal in some countries to employ children with no restrictions, should people be able to do it here?)

What about laws that prevent you putting a fireworks factory in the middle of an urban area?

Should dark skinned women be allowed to purchase the dangerous skin lighteners that were available to them in their own countries?

What about laws that oblige people to give their children an education?

What about laws that implicitly prevent women being forbidden to drive a car or go out without a male relative?

johnmcdnl

caseyann wrote: »

Well then they should move to a place where it is acceptable and feel happy there.

so run people out of the country for being religious - very tolerant society that would be -

if an Irish woman decided to convert to Islam what your saying is she should leave the country if she wants to go about living a normal life - ie going to the shops to buy groceries, going to the post office.. etc etc

despite her being an Irish citizen and all

The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

from the Proclamation of Indpendence there - equal rights and equal opportunites to all its citizens which I'm sure also included the right to religious beliefs

southsiderosie

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well because the people who are making this distincition are arguing that the state would be anti-Islam or anti-democatic if they banned the burqa in public. Are these private entities or in some case public entities anti-democratic or anti-islamic in their practices too then?

Employers are free to make their own dress codes, within reason. Private entities are free to make their own rules governing entry, within reason. "Within reason" almost always includes justification on the grounds of 1) security or 2) health and safety. Nightclubs get leeway on the grounds of criteria such as aesthetics - which they can get away with, as the ability to get into a nightclub has no bearing on your ability to make a living, etc. Although it is contextual, private entities generally have a great deal of leeway in setting rules for this kind of thing.

There is no plausible security threat presented by the burqa, in Ireland, or in countries with a much longer history of Muslim immigration. There is no health and safety threat to wearing it. It is not a case of indecent exposure; quite the opposite. And there is no evidence that its use is widespread. Given that so few women actually wear it, the main reason why it seems to be unpopular is because people are uncomfortable by the mere idea of it. And I do not think those are sufficient grounds to legislate against it.

southsiderosie

IngazZagni wrote: »

These places still face a risk of discriminating on religious grounds though. Stopping someone from entering a niteclub because they are wearing runners is fine as long as the dresscode was advertised. However stopping someone from entering who is wearing a burka would be far more risky as I doubt it would be advertised "no burkas" and if they did, there would be uproar I'd say.

But if the issue is security, they not need to say "no burqas", they can simply say "For security reasons, no items of clothing that cover your face and/or obscure your identity". Burqas fall into that category, but it is not targeting them per se.

caseyann wrote: »

Well then they should move to a place where it is acceptable and feel happy there.

Generally it is acceptable to wear what you like in liberal democracies. It is unfortunate that there are many Europeans who think that this is not the case today.

yammycat

johnmcdnl wrote: »

which I'm sure also included the right to religious beliefs

burqa isnt religious, it's cultural

oscarBravo

looksee wrote: »

Well what about laws preventing genital mutilation?

Unless there's a specific law banning it, I'm sure that falls under GBH or similar. It's also illegal in many (if not most) Muslim countries.

What about laws that limit styles of housebuilding - would I be allowed to put a minaret on my semi-d?

I can't build a church spire on my semi-d either.

What about laws that control work environments (its legal in some countries to employ children with no restrictions, should people be able to do it here?)

That's human rights law, not "western culture" law.

What about laws that prevent you putting a fireworks factory in the middle of an urban area?

Health and safety, not western culture.

Should dark skinned women be allowed to purchase the dangerous skin lighteners that were available to them in their own countries?

No more than they should be allowed to purchase any other dangerous chemicals or unsafe medicines.

What about laws that oblige people to give their children an education?

Education isn't exclusive to western culture.

What about laws that implicitly prevent women being forbidden to drive a car or go out without a male relative?

What about them? We're talking about laws enforcing western culture. At least, I thought we were talking about that, but I haven't seen any actual examples.

whydoibother?

Not sure whether I'd agree with banning it or not, but I definitely don't think that all other religious clothing/symbols should be banned too. If the reason for banning it is security, and a crucifix or whatever doesn't pose a security threat, no reason to ban that. Start from the position that people can wear whatever they like and only ban things when there is good reason.

oscarBravo

IngazZagni wrote: »

No I won't because it will take too long to find. You can find it on citizens info though.

You claimed - in block capitals, no less - that STATE LAW grants explicit rights in this regard. I think it's up to you to provide the evidence.

My grandfather was a (local) bank manager and father also works in the same profession (you'll just have to take my word) and having asked my father just there, he said they have the right under law to refuse anyone entry for whatever reason they deemed necessary.

You have the right under law to do pretty much anything that isn't explicitly outlawed. Banks are allowed to refuse entry to people wearing helmets, just as I am allowed to refuse people entry to my home for any reason that suits me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

yammycat

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What if I decided you should wear the paper bag on your head and there would be severe repercussions if you didn't.

oscarBravo

yammycat wrote: »

What if I decided you should wear the paper bag on your head and there would be severe repercussions if you didn't.

That's an interference with his right not to wear a paper bag. Why is one better than the other?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

yammycat

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an interference with his right not to wear a paper bag. Why is one better than the other?

because nobody wants to wear a paper bag just like nobody wants to wear a burqa.

If there were hundreds of people going around wearing paper bags on their head and it was known there was a culture of forcing people to wear paper bags but one or two people might actually have chosen to wear paper bags I'd ban the wearing of paper bags for the benefit of the vast majority of people effected.

yammycat

yammycat wrote: »

because nobody wants to wear a paper bag just like nobody wants to wear a burqa.

If there were hundreds of people going around wearing paper bags on their head and it was known there was a culture of forcing people to wear paper bags but one or two people might actually have chosen to wear paper bags I'd ban the wearing of paper bags for the benefit of the vast majority of people effected.

Yes they do. You might not want to, but that doesn't mean nobody else wants to.
And it should be up to them to make that decision, not the govt.