@FS - I hope you'll still treat me as being rational. Just because he's agreeing with my thoughts doesn't mean I support his logic! Where's Ghost when I need him :/

I'm not going too seriously into the link between the two arguments, because although that can be done it is quite hard to do since none of the aspects really 'line up'.

For the record I have also been diagnosed with learning disorders and have received extra time on exams occasionally. I was always uneasy about it, but let me say this. I had the ideas, the thoughts, worth marks, I had trouble getting them down on the paper in time. An exam should not measure speed writings skills, it should measure knowledge and comprehension. Failing someone for being poor at handwriting defeats the entire purpose of education in the first place.

whatever happened to the original topic before amon and others hijacked it? or became worse trolls!!!

Oh sorry about that, perhaps we should move it back .

@Mafia: That is fair enough, I see that logic, but in that case I could argue I'm being disadvantaged because I didn't know how to take the test that proves I'm not good at writing and so get extra time in my exams.

Also I'm glad to hear you do not think I sound like a troll figlesquidge. I realize debates can get heated, and the last thing I want is for people to think I am a jerk. In answer to De Gaulle, I propose moving this debate over to another thread to allow this one to get back to it's original discussion topic. I'm sorry your subject got buried in our argument.

Among Savag, were you raised in a straw person factory? Jeepers.

What I believe, and pay attention, is that being the racial majority in America, in this case, being white, conveys certain advantages to you, by virtue of you being white, and simultaneously, necessarily conveys disadvantages to other people by virtue of thier colour of skin.

I don't believe that genuine differences between races extend beyond the most superficial. Everything else is an arbitrary construction. But that doesn't mean it isn't real.


And don't worry figle, I find you to be relatively reasonable. :) *Hug*

Agreed and made one.

You believe wrong. White people are not treated any more advantageous by the government these days. The opposite is true. So where do you base this belief?

Guys, i was more aiming this at Amon Savag. That's why i mentioned that one name.
Troll troll troll

Who's the troll, here? I'm having a discuntion and you're calling me a troll lol.

Leave it Amon - made another thread threadID=594072 here.

You hijacked mine. If i were as bitter as you seem to be, i'd probably hijack yours too

Everyone knows your threads are a joke, De Gaulle. Let's not try and fool ourselves into thinking they're more.

Stupid little girl!

So to get this thread running again, and bump it, after it was totally derailed, I have to ask, are there arguments for banning burqas and niqabs and such, other than just the security argument or the women's rights argument?

Yes, security is a major reason to ban the burqa. It covers the whole of a person, and so you could be anyone hiding anything under it.

@Figs "It covers the whole of a person, and so you could be anyone hiding anything under it."

How does seeing the face of a person wearing bulky clothing increase security? Can you tell a suicide bomber from the expresion on their face? <whisper>Are you afraid of arabs?</whisper> Shall we ban kaftans too? Is that person really fat or a thin person with a bomb concealed in padding? Better ban fat people! Better still, ban clothes! Public nudity should be mandatory. What is that chap with a Bristol accent saying? I cannot understand a word he is saying. He might be asking for directions or he could be telling me that he has a bomb. Take no chances, ban 'em all. Seal off the West Country. Let them eat pasties.

----

If we pick on the symbols and practices of any minority we widen their separation from the majority and increases fear in all groups, this feeds alienation and ultimately violence by the nutters on both sides.

The current campaigns against burqas and headscarves is perceived by Muslims as an attack on them. Al-Qaeda recruiters will be rubbing their hands in glee.

Apologies for the shit grammar in my last post.

Yes, finally back on track.... it needs to be banned for womens rights and NS(national security), especially here...

@DG: Care to explain how security is improved? Why is seeing the face so important when it was is under clothes that the threat lies?

@Diplomat - I'm not sure its a sufficient reason to ban them, I was merely pointing out there is quite a clear reason *why* you would ban them.
Also, you can do much the same with loose hoodies etc.

But guys, isn`t a law meant to increase `security`one that ought to be enforceable? It seems to me that this would be nigh impossible to enforce unless you sent around a specialist `clothing police`.

Furthermore, you protect women by educating them about possibilities in western society, and providing defense from abusive husbands. NOT by limiting thier dress codes.

This is just a terrible idea. Sigh.

@Figs clearly people give it as a reason but I am questioning the logic. Do you think it increases security? If so, how?

@FS The Saudi's manage to have a religious police enforcing dress codes but I am sure NSW's finest can do it without help.

Like you I sigh at this divise

Divisive, fear filled, illogical legislation.

Well, anything that makes it harder to hide what you're thinking or planning surely does improve security. The question is more if it's worth it.

@Figs: seeing a face helps see what you know what someone is thinking & planning?

Helps, doesn't tell

Actually, seeing a face can help identify suspects on the street with security cameras and facial recognition software. I get that. But the problem is "What price security?" While I believe businesses (and banks are businesses) have the right to refuse service and set appropriate drerss codes to protect themselves, I do not believe it is the government's place to ban ANY item of clothing under the pretext of "national security." There are plenty of other items of clothing that disguise the face (hoodies drawn tight, sunglasses, motorcycle helmets, etc.) Are we now goingt o pass a law that say your face must be visible at all times you are in public view? And to target a minority group who do so for ostensibly religious reasons (doesn't matter if it is a practice only 5 years old, it is still for religious reasons) only divides the world further and begs for *more* terrorist activity and fuels the fire that helps them grow their converts.