The Burkini Ban

But isn't the west representative of the cultural embodiment of freedom?

 

I think we're better than, 'An eye for an eye' though. That's what separates 'us' from 'them'. We're above vengeful reasoning -- or at least, I think we should be.

Do you think we should have the right to behead Muslims, just because they behead apostates in Saudi Arabia? I wouldn't have thought so. I tihnk this demonstrates that even the people we have contempt for, should have the same rights the rest of us do.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 1, 2016 ---

Almost all the refugees seem to be young Muslim men. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd genuinely enjoy having a look at it.

 

Oh, you're completely right (as far as illegal immigrants go-or at least illegal until they touch the land), however if you looked at the context and stopped being so one-sided you may understand why. Let's look at boat smugglers; these people will get you from Turkey to Greece on over-crowded, unsafe boats, for the fine tune of $1000 or more. When you're in a third-world, war-torn country, $1000 for yourself is hard enough, never-mind for families of 5+. So, what a family will do is send their man over, hoping that he will be able to find a job, and slowly but surely bring back the rest. Don't worry, soon enough you'll be seeing the woman and children come too, and you'll have even more fire to throw at people who just want to get away from a hell-hole life. Have fun!

By the way, when I had said "they" in my quote above, I meant "they" as in possible terrorists.

 

Again, if you have any sources to support what you've said, I'd appreciate it. I'll start, if it helps.

From the below graphic, it seems that over 5 male refugees come to Europe for every 1 woman. In fact, more children come here than women. I believe those stats come from the UN.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...5/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-9.59.12-PM.jpg

I'm no fan of the content creator personally, but I largely agree with the points being made.



These threads are to discuss the issues, civilly. It's difficult to do so when we demonize and denigrate one another -- I'd very much like it if we didn't do that in the future, thank you.

 

Oh ffs no one here understands the main reason they're banning it is for security reasons... So people can't go in to a shop or in a public place wearing essentially a balaclava and commit a crime with their identity obscured. They can't identify someone from their legs now can they (unless they have tattoos which I highly doubt considering the religion)? Jesus Christ people.

 

(I am totally uneducated on this and my only knowledge of the issue is from this thread and a 4 minute google search/nyt article)


anyway,

Am just wondering can't you still wear a balaclava and a normal burka, how is banning bathing suits going to help? Like couldn't the people if they wanted to cause terrorism stuff just wear a balaclava or a normal burka and go and do terrorism on the beach anyway? how is banning there swimmy gear going to stop the hypothetical terroristers

 

Maybe you should have used those four minutes more wisely... As wearing a burka is banned and so is a balaclava. Why in the seven hells would they ban a swimming costume before they banned the actual outfit?

Edit: I'm not gonna change what I said but just realised it probably came across as really harsh, apologies.

 

That's funny, because information from my Canadian government sourced from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) states the contrary, regarding the proportion of men to women (top of the seventh page).

http://lifelinesyria.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EN-Syrian-Population-Profile.pdf

Regardless, you're right, let's keep this civil. I've already addressed my position on the proportion of men to women, and have allocated a reason as to why (if your data is correct and mine is not) that may be. I'd also like to say that the majority of the things said in the video I agree with, but disagree with the manner in which it is presented. For instance, the portion regarding assimilation. Of course we must teach these new-comers the customs and legalities of the country they're introduced to; however, what this man and seemingly you imply is to create a total disconnect from that person's original culture. A middle-ground has to be reached; one which respects the customs and traditions of others whilst ensuring laws imposed to protect public safety are followed. That first part? Not at all talked about. Furthermore, regarding the other points, I have a few things to address. Rape: it's certainly true incidents have been on the rise, however, a chart that speaks of the same issues regarding Sweden and rape as discussed in the video tells a different story.

Sweden: Rape Capital of the West (This was made in 2012, however the Syrian Crisis had started in 2011 so...)

Notice the chart, which does it's duty in exemplifying Sweden's high number of rape cases, but let's also look at 3 other entries in that chart. My country, Canada, a country I'd like to visit, Greece, and a beautiful South-Asian country, Indonesia. Now, it's true rape in Greece has been on the rise, but proportional to the amount of refugees Greece has received, it's low. (Here's some info as early as 2016 from the United States' Bureau of Diplomatic Security - sixth line down)

Greece 2016 Crime & Safety Report

Now let's look at Canada, one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world. Rape here is also exceedingly low. Personally, I can tell you that three doors down from my house a Syrian mother, father, and child settled in. Were they a bit reserved and kept to themselves? Yes. Did I ever feel threatened for my safety, both sexually and physically? No. Finally, let's look at Indonesia, which has the lowest rape rates on that list. Do you want to know what the predominant religion is in Indonesia? Here it is.

Religion in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. So, to sum up the rape portion of my long rant here, I want to say that there is correlation, however I personally don't think that correlation is 100% the problem here. Oh, one last thing. Those Liberal policies introduced in the 70's (not just the immigration ones but the deregulation and others) after huge economic downturns from a Conservative change have helped boost
Sweden to having one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world. Maybe not all bad, eh?

I'm tired so I'm gonna skip my other points (xD), but I would like to say that I heavily agree with that last point. How 'bout we stop interfering, and when we do, work to fix the problem, not further it for our own gains!

But what does all of this have to do with the burkini anyways? Regardless of this useless banter you and I have exchanged, banning it only perpetuates this fear society we now live in, and at the same time strips women of their ability to express their religion. The French government have banned this proposal (yeah you French govt), so why am I wasting my time when I could be playing Minecraft!

 

I absolutely do understand this is for 'security reasons'. However, what happens when it's decided hoodies also aid in the committing of a crime and those are banned for security reasons? What happens when it's decided that a purse should be banned for security reasons? Or whatever other article of clothing you want to plausibly insert here? Being more secure is not enough reason to give up your freedoms.

I for one hope the citizenry where these laws are in effect publically rebel against them by wearing the outlawed garments. We had a wise man in America once say

- Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

That's about the ones coming to Canada, not in general. Because the people that came here were picked by the government, they picked families over just men.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 2, 2016 ---

In a place like Disney land, they check things like purses and have you remove the hood, but they can't do that with a (I foot what the things are called and don't want to be rascsit so insert name of head covering here)

 

The difference is that Disney, being a private company has every right to refuse service over security concerns. When a government of a nation begins to criminally enforce laws, that's an issue in my opinion. It really bothers me how much freedom has been infringed on in the name of security against terrorism, when the deaths it cause isn't great by any numbers. Far more people die by drugs, drinking, driving, or just in general existing on this planet.

If you look at France, in the 21st century there has been 1,039 casualties from terrorist attacks. That is like 0.001575% of the French population. That's nothing! Drunk driving in France kills over 3,000 people every single year. Where is the intense laws against this practice in the name of security? What about drugs in France, as overdoses average about 650 yearly. In just two years, drugs alone surpass all terrorist casualties that happened in 16 years.

This applies to almost every nation, America included. At about 3000 casualties (0.0011% of population), we have embarked on a 16 year military incursion around the globe, killing 104,000 people and over 200,000 deaths in Iraq. More American soldiers have died in these wars than people were killed in the sole event that lead to those two wars.

Imposing restrictions on your citizens freedom to determine how they want to dress is just as bad as Sharia law, especially when it comes from a Western styled democracy. This isn't about racism, xenophobia, or anything else. This is the result of people being scared and dumb, and not willing to look at the big picture. Islamic terrorism is not a threat to any Western nation, and they never will be. If we want to solve terrorism then perhaps we should simply leave the Middle East / Near East Asia to fend for themselves, they will solve the issue or they will collapse.


(Not directing that at you Marshy, but our world is seemingly entering a scary state of governments being very restrictive on their citizens all in the name of law and order when the threat that is present really isn't a threat at all.)

 

That's a ridiculous comparison. A full facial covering is slightly different than a hoodie or a purse. Unless you're suggesting people put purses on their heads or pull hoodies down to completely obscure their faces?

 

It's an accurate comparison, a government deciding what a person may wear? That's absurd.

 

@ThecrazyJJ -- That's funny, because information from my Canadian government sourced from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) states the contrary, regarding the proportion of men to women (top of the seventh page).

That's to Canada. Where they have a strict immigration policy, no? That isn't the case for mainland Europe. There's almost (and in some cases, zero) vetting of refugees.

Regardless, you're right, let's keep this civil. I've already addressed my position on the proportion of men to women, and have allocated a reason as to why (if your data is correct and mine is not) that may be. I'd also like to say that the majority of the things said in the video I agree with, but disagree with the manner in which it is presented. For instance, the portion regarding assimilation. Of course we must teach these new-comers the customs and legalities of the country they're introduced to; however, what this man and seemingly you imply is to create a total disconnect from that person's original culture. A middle-ground has to be reached; one which respects the customs and traditions of others whilst ensuring laws imposed to protect public safety are followed. That first part? Not at all talked about.

I disagree for the following reason. I'm not a moral or cultural relativist. I believe some cultures are better than others, and that ideas+actions should earn respect -- rather than being given it by default.

Rape: it's certainly true incidents have been on the rise, however, a chart that speaks of the same issues regarding Sweden and rape as discussed in the video tells a different story.

As you elude to, your data is 4 years old, whereas my stats were from 2015. Funnily enough, I saved this to my bookmarks the other day, regarding Sweden.

Swedish Government is offering migrants up to £3,500 each to leave • /r/worldnews

Regarding rape: (Not for the sensitive) CBN report on the grooming gangs scandal: "Calculations based on convictions reveal that a British Muslim male is 170 times more likely to be part of a grooming gang than a non-Muslim." [skip to 9:04] • /r/ukpolitics

Notice the chart, which does it's duty in exemplifying Sweden's high number of rape cases, but let's also look at 3 other entries in that chart. My country, Canada, a country I'd like to visit, Greece, and a beautiful South-Asian country, Indonesia. Now, it's true rape in Greece has been on the rise, but proportional to the amount of refugees Greece has received, it's low. (Here's some info as early as 2016 from the United States' Bureau of Diplomatic Security - sixth line down)

They don't flee to Greece. They flee to welfare states. Germany, France, Sweden, the UK. That's where all the free s*** is.

I want to say that there is correlation, however I personally don't think that correlation is 100% the problem here.

I believe that's because you're not looking in the right places.

Those Liberal policies introduced in the 70's (not just the immigration ones but the deregulation and others) after huge economic downturns from a Conservative change have helped boost Sweden to having one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. Could you elaborate for me?

How 'bout we stop interfering, and when we do, work to fix the problem, not further it for our own gains!

I apologize, but I'm not quite sure what this means either. "Furthering for our own gains"?

But what does all of this have to do with the burkini anyways? Regardless of this useless banter you and I have exchanged, banning it only perpetuates this fear society we now live in, and at the same time strips women of their ability to express their religion.

In that case, I assume you support the rights of Muslim women to wear the Burka in public?

Banning anything could be seen as "perpetuating a fear society", but it's beneficial if some things *are* banned. I don't think it's an apt response to the conversation we're having, because you could use that line for anything.

As for 'expressing their religion', I don't think they have that right. The freedom to swing your arm ends at my face. The freedom for you to express your religion ends the moment you start infringing upon the rights of others, or to create loopholes for you to do what you wish.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 2, 2016 ---

Solidarity with @Splendy on this one. A hoodie can obscure the face, making it difficult to identity the perpetrator of a crime. A purse cannot fulfill that role to the same degree, and I don't think that's particularly close.

In the UK, you're free to wear a hoodie in public, but the minute you go into a shop? You have to remove it. I think that's a fair middle-ground. Though I could be pushed to go even further with that, I think.

TL; DR -- Do you think I should be allowed to go into a shop and wear a balaclava? Take that position, and now apply it to all facial coverings. Burka included.

 

The section that's taken from is not explaining refugees to Canada. At least, nowhere in that article does it say so. All it says is "Figure six: Age and Gender breakdown of Syrian refugees". You may be confused because of the previous sub-topic in that article, called "Demographic Characteristics", where they say "This section provides an overview of general characteristics and demographics of Syrians in their country of origin. In addition, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has provided demographic information on Syrian refugees who have resettled to Canada." . This however is referring to the information regarding Syria's home population, aided by our own knowledge. The next part, titled "Countries of Asylum" (where the graph is), refers to the refugees themselves and the countries they reside in.

I've also found evidence from the U.N that states that a) in 2015, arrivals to Greece by Sea were indeed extremely high and b) the proportion of men to women / children is not *as* one-sided as you suggest, with kids almost over-taking the men. (Bear in mind this is only in Greece by sea, however that represents a large portion of how refugees move)

UNHCR Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean

 

Myself and others seem to believe it's only talking about Canada. I'm stumped as to how to proceed. Could you address the other points?

As for Greece, again, see my post above.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 3, 2016 ---

This is probably worth it's own thread. For now, I think discussion should stick to the Burkini/Burka ban.

 

Oh come on, you and I both know full well all the s*** that's been happening in the Middle East is shrouded in Western special interests: the cold war, oil, democracy, etc. We've exploited them beyond belief.

 

Banning something because it scares you is not a reason to ban something.

 

So you're ok with someone, probably not even Muslim, donning an outfit which completely obscures their identity and then commiting a crime and due to said outfit they can't be traced and held accountable? You prefer people's right to wear something over another's right to live?

 

Many places already have laws against using anything to conceal identity while committing a crime. I also support the right of a police officer to stop me and ask for my ID if I were walking down the road with a face mask. However, I do not support the premise of a citizen legally doing his own business and being penalized for what he chooses to put on.

The issue isn't singularly about a mask, but the premise of prohibiting behavior / expression in the name of security. While a mask aids in crime in a certain way, there are other objects that aid in crime that at times can cost other's their lives too. I, again, bring up the hoodie/trenchcoat/other garment that allows a person to more easily conceal a firearm. If we're prohibiting one for security reasons, the logic dictates we look at other objects that have negative impact on "security".

That being said, a face mask is not the same as a Burkini, which is the topic of the debate and you stated as done for security reasons. However, looking at many images of a "Burkini", it's apparent that it does not conceal identity, as it leaves the face exposed. You stated that they banned the burkini to prevent people from concealing their face during a crime, and those two concepts are not mutual.

In the end, freedom has a cost, and usually that cost is danger. I value my freedom more than I fear the danger, to so answer your question. People's right to express themselves as long as they see fit in a legal and safe manner certainly trump the fear of others.