POLL: Ban the Burqa?

Hell you do not even have the courage of wording your poll in an honest manner.

An yes, I do not think that you have any more rights to dictate women clothing then ISS does.

 

Want to know how many criminals conceal a weapon with which they murder others in their pants? Shall we count the number of deaths in this country from concealed weapons hidden inside someone's baggy pant legs with the number of deaths we can attribute to a woman with a concealed weapon in a burka in this country. Its a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) bigoted argument completely beyond any seriously measured threat here in the states.. Boys are killing boys at an astonishing rate here, with guns sitting hidden by an extra large shirt and pants that bag. Nobody gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about concealed weapons that really kill people here. I haven't read about state bans on baggy clothing that may hide a gang-bangers piece.

 

`
Can the pathetic BS excuses and your uber fake rationale. The fact remains, the courts have consistently sided with laws that prevent "possible harm" despite your opinions. Deal with it.

 

I am googling, looking for any 'burka' related deaths in this country. so far nothing. Its fear-mongering bigotry you are selling . As for the law, 'possible harm' will not be the legal standard applied to the statute once a suspect class and disparate treatment is involved. Any bulky clothing has the same risk and potential. The statutory language must be written to be inclusive of all threats for concealment of weapons. As for the face, we allow wigs, skin darkening or lightening make-up, fake wrinkles, fake noses, fake ears, fake full beards ,sideburns, mustaches, hair dye, colored contacts, waist or breast padding and a hundred other methods of identity disguise that may be used in the commission of a crime. Just look in any costume store to see an inventory of disguises that can contribute to 'possible harm'.

Your 'burka' statute has some serious appellate problems. Happy Halloween!

 

`
That proved nothing. LEO's don't record or report incidences of crimes by what a person wears. Try googling "pink sweaters" and see what you get. Now, you are getting all emotional about this....tears yet? Deal with the fact that the US allows the removal of a burqa as means of personal identification such as banking, drivers license, passports, police ID's, etc. Many professions do not allow burqa's. You are way over that top. Want me to send you a towel?

 

I love it how Right Wingers are perfectly fine with abridging someone's first amendment rights but get extremely pissed off if someone even mentions their second amendment rights. You have the right to freedom of religion in the United States, and nothing is going to change that. That's what makes this country the greatest in the world. So don't try to take a religious outfit away from a religion. Whats the difference between a burqa and a nun outfit, then? Hmm. They really are the same thing if you think about it. Should we ban that too? Or maybe just ban Islam? Or maybe just ban every religion?

Liberate Islamic females....we need to liberate our beautiful country from the likes of people who want to take away our rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever been to the Middle East and seen someone with a burqa on?

 

`
Have you ever been to Antarctica and saw a penguin fly? That has nothing to do with this topic. Try to remain focused.

 

And I support many of those brief instances in which the goal is to establish a visual identity. that reflects a compelling state interest and the scope of the infringement is measured and minimized . We are talking five or ten minutes for a narrowly tailored exception clearly consistent with recognised state purpose. I have taken no stance on what private entities may do or require on their property. I do not believe that Muslims are entitled to avoid or dodge secular regulations that are drawn indifferent to their faith with a nrrowly defined and articulated state purpose. I am concerned about those drawn with Muslims in mind, or with overly vague or ambiguous or broad language.

There is a difference between banning a burqa in public for example, and allowing a police officer who can show probable cause, to ask for its temporary removal for ID purposes.

 

`
The topic does not state "in public." It says banning the burqa, in the general context. My opinion is yes, I cite legal and rational reasons. You say no, and cite nothing. As you have not proved a thing, your opinion is just that, an opinion. I could also point out that many sovereign states are banning the burqa for the reasons I stated; "possible harm." When it comes to safety and the law, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

private entities cannot 'ban' squat. That is a legislative or regulatory power. they can write policies and rules that will apply to conduct on their property. You have not cited anything. Your contribution to the law here is a single two word phrase ' possible harm' without any legal context or definition. It is meaningless language, Sovereign states without our state and federal constitution are not obviously constrained by a 14 amendment or a First amendment, let alone any potential state constitutional language. Nothing rational about your cherry-picked target demographic. Anyone can conceal their face with impunity, and anyone can wear baggy clothing with impunity in this country, except in very narrow circumstances where a compelling reason is apparent. People get to wear masks or hide their face, and they get to wear loosely fitting garments in public. the only question is when government can ask for their removal for a secular and narrow purpose of identification.

I will be interested when you cite an appellate court decision with a set of facts behind it.

 

`
1 - You are giving your opinions. Thanks but they are not facts.

2 - As I stated from the start, the pc democrats are clueless as to the constitutional ramifications of Obama's bathroom shenanigans. As was stated in the news article, which you deliberately overlooked, this issue is headed to the Supreme Court because of the many problems with it. The lower courts decision to put a nationwide stay on his idiotic notions, is based on sound constitutional jurisprudence. However, that is only one of the many different lawsuits facing the administration of this issue. The courts, not you or I, will decide this issue.

3 - You are just playing with words, making up things as you go along. You have NOT presented a case and certainly your examples are frivolous.

 

If they are wearing it under their own free will then its no different than any other persons clothing.

 

Maybe I am missing the link to which you refer above. Which post is this link in?
The only link I see in this entire thread is a link to an Australian opinion piece written by some 'Sheik' describing what burquas are purported to signify. That tells us nothing about American jurisprudence at all and nothing useful about burquas worn by any woman here. Providing a link to any case that has reached an American appellate court on a government ban on burquas, and that will be relevant.

 

Judging by the very biased nature of his polls, I think that Liberation is a reincarnation of Rangecontraction.

 

A down filled PARKA can hide bombs!!! Ban parkas, freeze for liberty !!!!

A skirt can hide a bomb! Ban skirts!

Baggie pants can hid a bomb! Ban baggy pants!!!

A shoe can hide a bomb! Ban shoes!!!


A cowboy hat can hide a bomb! Ban cowboy hats!!


The US doesn't oppress women ! (unless they want equal pay, be able to fight in combat, want an abortion, wear pants, wear what they want, or like any color but pink, etc.)

 

To emancipate Muslim women is what we have to do.

It's obvious that in a society where a woman cannot make a choice about his mate [and try and seduce men in a free way], where men decide who she has to marry, the male domain of the society imposes to women to live hiding their beauty.

Substantially Muslim traditional men are not able to seduce women and they are not able to keep them loyal. Emancipate Muslim women and Muslim population will become higher, less fury, more beautiful and less dump.

 

If a woman wants to wear a burqa I say please let he do so....It will make her an obvious person to avoid completely. If she wants to be ridiculed and disliked that is her call. Much alike seeing an overtly Muslim cashier in a store and going to the next line.

 

Woman ... under a burka there was also Osama Bin Laden while he was escaping from Afghanistan!

So when I see a person wearing a burka I wonder if "it" is male or female [German could be useful here, since the German language has got a neutral subject ... "es"].

And this should suggest some considerations.

 

is the Christian kkk outfit banned?



I think both outfits are stupid and scary, if we ban one, we would have to ban all outfits that cover the face




.

 

The burka with only the mesh part for vision shouldn't be allowed. Public safety should come first, that type of clothing is just too extreme for America.
Muslim women have a number of other head coverings and they should all be allowed without question.

 

KKK members don't wear their pointy hats out in daily life. How many do you see at the public parks or restaurants. Were they ever worn out casually?
I cant believe they weren't banned from the get go, considering what they stood for.

 

should they be illegal to wear... yes or no

if were gonna outlaw some, we need to outlaw all outfits that cover the face

.

 

I think so,unless its worn for protection or kids on Halloween night or privately.
Should we ban football helmets, motorcycle helmets, police protective gear. That would be kind of silly.

 

so the kkk and burka could be worn on Halloween?

agree, helmets ect would not be a issue if worn while serving a safety purpose

 

Your mistake is in assuming Muslim women have choices.

They do not.

They are property.