Hilary or Donald

[Dave70]

The burqa / niqab are a wonderful reminders of how 'modestly' can be interpreted by playful scamps like the Taliban and their ilk to mean 'cover yourself from head your head from toe woman because we are a fanatical bunch of acutely sexually repressed violent fucktards likely to gang **** you, then level charges of dishonoring your family in a sharia court, then beat you, then stone you to death'.
In the west, where a womans right not to wear it if they choose is protected by the law of the land, its a symbol of religious piety, devotion and self expression. So have at it if you must.

But you cant have it both ways (gods law, actual law) If you cant wear a full face helmet, you cant wear a niqab, for obvious reasons, so roll it back where necessary. Hurt feelings be ******. Be a sport about it girls.

 

[Danscraftbeer]

Yeah Its dumb ozzies fault they cant strike up a conversation with someone in a Burqa.

I can relate to the cloaking your identity point of view. Also adding. We have laws set here and we all abide them. Anyone here expect to go out in public in a cloak? balaclava? Big brother watching CCTV cameras. Cant walk into a bank wearing a helmet. yada yada..
No matter how high your personal evolved intelligence goes look at the over all picture of the population. Its not normal here. Or do we convert? Submit? Hell no.
I'll speak of a overall open democratic society in oz and beyond our nation point of view, that the Burqa is offensive as in hiding who you are. Face to face! were did that go?
There it is and you know how being offended really pulls weight these days. The battle of their religion being considered above our laws. Or a religion that holds the highest record in our modern days of radicalism, bending the rules of this democracy? Be bloody carefull.
Sorry, that's a downer note please make good jokes now.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

yes, but you shouldnt be able to force them to change their clothing based on your 'feelings'

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

What I am stating is that it does not make me feel welcome or comfortable conversing in person with someone's face I can't see. It's a scientific fact that much communication occurs through facial expressions and /or body movements.

Are you trying to force me as to what makes me feel comfortable? And if it doesn't then my feelings are wrong?

 

[manticle]

Dave - we're not living in Afghanistan. Taliban don't have a heap of say here.

As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in the noon sun if he desires?

It's carrying a sawn-off and demanding money that's the sticking point. Ban that.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

But you cant have it both ways (gods law, actual law) If you cant wear a full face helmet, you cant wear a niqab, for obvious reasons, so roll it back where necessary. Hurt feelings be ******. Be a sport about it girls.

That law really ruined my career as a bank robber

 

[Danscraftbeer]

Point is your not allowed to wear it!

 

[manticle]

In a bank.

You are allowed to wear it in public in most instances.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in...

It's a civil liberty to be able to walk down the street and have a talk with someone face to face.

If someone wants (or is coerced) to waive that civil liberty it is a backward step for society.

 

[manticle]

If you really think you have a leg to stand on with that argument, I wish you luck.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Point is your not allowed to wear it!

..well....by law, when on the the road you have to..

There are just way to many laws

In a bank.

You are allowed to wear it in public in most instances.

Only if you want to look like a power ranger

 

[manticle]

Thing is, as far as I can work out, there are company policies that request removal if you want to be served.

Different to laws, yes?

Happy to be wrong if I've missed something

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

It's a civil liberty to be able to walk down the street and have a talk with someone face to face.

No it isnt, its not even a right, the fact that you can does not make it a right. If I dont want to talk with someone face to face down the street then there is **** all you can do about it

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Thing is, as far as I can work out, there are company policies that request removal if you want to be served.

Mostly those that have lots of money on the premises....and those that take passport photo.s

 

[good4whatAlesU]

If you really think you have a leg to stand on with that argument, I wish you luck.

Thanks.

 

[manticle]

Sorry mate - I really want to discuss points and counterpoints and avoid hyperbole or playing man, not ball but your argument is so weak, I'm not sure where to go.

Feeling comfortable having a conversation with stranger is not a civil right under any definition.

In regards to having a conversation (whether comfortable or not) - well under current laws you can. And you can do it wearing a veil.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Sometomes I deliberately choose not to make eye contact with others when walking down the street. Does this mean that there is a percentage of a chance that I could be arrested?

 

[Danscraftbeer]

No it isnt, its not even a right. If I dont want to talk with someone face to face down the street then there is **** all you can do about it

At least you can do it face to face. Body language thing again its so useful and it really does work without saying any words.
Its what I know. How the fark can you read a person under a cloak?

 

[manticle]

I can read you under your avatar as much as is required for conversation here.

 

[manticle]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
What I am stating is that it does not make me feel welcome or comfortable conversing in person with someone's face I can't see. It's a scientific fact that much communication occurs through facial expressions and /or body movements.
Are you trying to force me as to what makes me feel comfortable? And if it doesn't then my feelings are wrong?

Your feelings and opinions are yours but they still may be ill informed or based on falsehoods.

However the initial discussion was about proposed legislation change, rather than what people like/dislike.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Dave70]

Dave - we're not living in Afghanistan. Taliban don't have a heap of say here.

As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in the noon sun if he desires?

It's carrying a sawn-off and demanding money that's the sticking point. Ban that.

The Taliban thing was more a segue. Or allegory. Or something.
By all means, wear a balaclava 24/7, I'll defend his right to do that, as I am defending the right of a women to dress somewhat like ninjutsu. Any eccentricity is fine with me - so long as it's bent has provision to accommodate what the law demands, and not transcend it.
Not saying all balaclava / burqu enthusiasts are habitual lawbreakers, but its an important point.