Hilary or Donald

[manticle]

Or anywhere else

 

[good4whatAlesU]

And?
The question you've yet to answer is does that give you the right to tell someone what they can or can't wear under national law?

Actually I did answer it.

I put it to you that the ability to walk down the street without the need to cover your face or identity is a civil liberty.

Those that wish to waive that liberty may do so, at their own discretion.

 

[manticle]

And they do.
Question was about law to remove part 2.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

....and so is the ability to walk down the street with the need to cover your face or identity is a civil liberty.

 

[Danscraftbeer]

Ah the teething of democracy. Its kind of turmoil, sometimes painful but not too bad in the long run and should be the long runner. Somehow.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

The word you use "need" is incompatible with your statement.

In a free society you freely choose to take or waive your liberty.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

The liberty is being free of the need to do something. Unless you want to of course, upon which you are waiving that liberty.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Some times you may need to cover yourself up....or even want to

 

[good4whatAlesU]

If you choose to waive a freedom it's your choice.

But I think as a society it's better to be free.

 

[Dave70]

And she chose not to rather than being forced not to, yes?

Even if she was, she likely would have told em to go **** themselves, politely. I suppose she could have a some gesture of solidarity, its not actually law to wear it anywhere that I know of, other than theoretically controlled provincial shitholes, but the point I was making is covering your face certainly inhibits communication.
Though there always exceptions to the rule.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

If you choose to waive a freedom it's your choice.

But I think as a society it's better to be free.

How is it waiving freedom...that just doesnt make sense.... you should be free to walk around fully covered up......some people have to, some want to....some dont give a ****

 

[good4whatAlesU]

That is not a freedom. It's a restraint (by choice).

Nighty night gentlemen. Enjoy your civil liberties tomorrow. Or choose not to take them. Up to you.

 

[Bridges]

A grown woman wearing what she chooses to wear in public, who is happy and comfortable going about her business, speaking to whoever she wants. Doesn't **** me nearly as much as these **** heads.

 

[Dave70]

Lets put them in a huge cage with this lot, lock the doors and and dont let them out until they come to an amicable agreement.

 

[manticle]

I agree (again)

 

[Brewnicorn]

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.

Exactly. Point well made Manticle.
There's no right that anyone has to prevail over another person for their own comfort.
This fictional ideal where a utopia might prevail but for the garment is utter ****. Visiting Muslim countries tells you that's not the norm there. It's not the norm here. Name one country where you think it's the case and meet your counter point. It's not forced on anyone but a minority by a small number of ********. Separate the ******* from the religion as you would the balaclava wearer from his when he robs a bank.
Fundamentalist ideology is not the same as religion. Read the writings of the Prophet Mohammed and it should tell you something about respect for women that's pretty ******* absent in most western societies. That any religion's teachings have been *******ised and misinterpreted and pushed sideways for the gain of a minority or (surprise) a hierarchy in a religion is not new. It's not unique to Muslim culture either.
Now I've said a bit there but if anyone wants to take up the challenge do some reading through Aust National Uni. http://cais.anu.edu.au
Do it. Don't follow the herd. Learn the great stuff, the ugly stuff and the challenges. Plenty of bigger **** to worry about.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Religious documents are written by men. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

If you live in a lucky country like Australia, you are spoiled by the choice whether to take up civil liberties or not. The choice in itself is not a civil liberty, but it is a freedom to be able to choose.

Personally, I like being able walk down the street without hiding my identity and communicate with someone. I choose to take up this civil liberty. Some others waive it. That is their choice.

 

[goomboogo]

The liberty is being free of the need to do something. Unless you want to of course, upon which you are waiving that liberty.

Can you expand on this idea that exercising choice is an abandonment of liberty. I presume you are referring to liberty in the political sense rather than liberty through the prism of philosophy.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Okay.

Take someone who chooses to live in a brick cell in their back yard, locked except on the occasion that someone uses them as a *** slave. The person in question is making this choice.

Is this persons 'choice' a civil liberty? Or is their choice the 'waiving" of an available civil liberty. I.e. to be free.

 

[goomboogo]

If a person is freely making that choice then they are not a slave. In the example you give, the person is not waiving their civil liberty. This person's right to be subjected to the established laws of the community are not being infringed by virtue of their choice.

The only way your example would be valid was if the person in question was forced by another person or entity such as a government to live in the brick cell in the back yard. This would then be an attack on the person's civil liberty.