Another friend in another forum was discussing the Burqa issue. it''s very complicated.

For passports I believe the face has to be unobstructed, and when going through passport control burqa wearers have to go into a private room with a female officer type person and remove the face covering for identity verification purposes.

I too agree that covering your face to such an extent is a barrier to social interaction, and will often be perceived as at least anti-social and potentially as a deliberately intimidating thing to do.

I also believe that people should accept that though they may have the right to dress or act a certain way if they so choose, other people must also have the right to react to other people's actions/chosen modes of dress, and that the cold facts of reality are that certain modes of dress or actions carry certain inferences – a balaclava and camouflage/combat style clothing, for instance, will make many people think you have violent intentions, dying yourself orange and advertising soft core porn about your person will make many people think you are an idiot, and dressing in all black will make many think you are a satanist.

I think this is another aspect of people wanting to abdicate personal responsibility. if you live in a society, and few of us have the means either physically or spiritually to do otherwise, you have to co-exist with others, and if you're to do that peacefully you have to try and balance your "rights" with those of the people around you, and accept that the things you do will have consequences (this bit is just physics really, all actions having equal and opposite reactions).

I'm also not aware of any convention or declaration of rights (and I've probably studied this more than most) including "the right not to be offended" or "the right to be protected from sights that may in some way upset you or offend your sensibilities".

There are all manner of things that upset, offend, aggravate and incense me in the world. I don't, however, think that the vast majority of them should be "banned" (a few notable exceptions – cruelty to animals/children, that sort of thing), or in many cases even restricted by legislation beyond the bare minimum (which would be essentially a prohibition on harming anyone who hasn't consented to whatever you're doing to/with them).

Specifically regarding the burqa ban – I think it's wrong for the government to prohibit any form of dress, be it an expression of religious belief or a desire to proclaim affiliation to a football team, or anything else for that matter. It's a relatively small step from banning the burqa to banning facial piercings or unnaturally coloured hair (walking around in big boots, with studded accessories, bedecked with heavy chains and with metal through your face could be considered by many to be quite intimidating. The fact that goths are probably more likely to the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators being neither here nor there).

I would, however, support the "right" of private businesses to ban things that cover the face in their premises, as many banks and petrol stations for example already do with motor cycle helmets. After all, these are not places that anyone is really forced to patronise, and there are legitimate security concerns at play.

how so?

Post edited 9:27 pm – Mon 19-Jul-10 by Rae Mond

I'm sorry, Sandy, I jumped to a wrong conclusion when I saw the words "religious indoctrination", which is something I usually go to lengths to avoid doing, and often rebuke others sternly for! Mea Culpa.

I thought you were implying that all religion was indoctrination, and not something that a rational individual might independently come to believe in. As (I flatter myself, I know) a rational person of faith it really bothers me if someone tries to generalise that it's purely a cynical method of social control (usually these people are evangelical atheists, the subject of an earlier rant).

You're right, the subjugation of women via the violent enforcement* of religious dogma is wrong, the stoning of adulteresses (but not the necessary other party to the "crime"), treating women an girls a possessions of male relatives, and particularly abhorrent practices like immolation and female genital mutilation are utterly inexcusable, and even worse (though it pretty hard to imagine female genital mutilation could be anything other than the ultimate superlative of bad) if the victims are made to believe that they deserve what is being done to them just because they were born with ovaries. Indeed, the stoning of homosexuals is just as bad.

As a side note, I find it quite remarkable that people who profess to do these things in the name of their deity are so oblivious to incongruity of their actions with the teachings of the major prophets of their "faith". All the major religions have at their core a message of love and peace.

But back to the subject, I take the point about using things like the burqa being used as tools of oppresive regimes, but (particularly in the UK and other liberal western democratic type states) this isn't always the cases, and there are increasingly reports of converts and those raised in a more liberal tradition, choosing to wear it.  I don't want to go anywhere near the debate about whether or not it's actually a requirement of their faith. I don't know even nearly enough of the koran to make a useful contribution in that sphere.

But I think that those who have chosen to express their faith in this way shouldn't be legally prevented from doing so because it might make other people uncomfortable. Seeing 12 year olds in miniskirts and playboy everything makes me uncomfortable, and seeing groups of chavvy boys hanging around car parks trying to seduce each other with their hideous cars makes me uncomfortable, but I don't think these things should be illegal.

How to the protect the rights of those who don't want to wear a burqa and who's family might pressure them to do so? not a clue. It's part of a bigger picture that includes tackling other sorts of domestic abuse (including the under-reported problems of men who are abused by female partners) as well.

*Edit- or even the non-violent but insidious and psychologically abusive sort of enforcement

Jeepers!

there's an awesome game called dead rising, which involves running around a shopping mall killing zombies, and by far best place to head is the hardware store.

Also one of the first stops in my run around before barricading myself into the castle when the zombies come for real. You can stock up on all sorts of handy stuff.