banning burqas

???Against the law prohibiting masked assembly or masked assembly?

Uh, yes. I'd be against any law prohibiting masked assembly.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Fair point. How about this for a lateral solution?Any woman is allowed to wear a Burka in public, but only if their husband/father/brother is chained to them and wears a T-shirt with the slogan:"I am a wretched, grubby, pathetic little excuse for a man with a really small dick and you have permission to throw dog shit in my face"OK...it would have to be a big T-shirt...but it seems to tick all the boxes.

Well....There could still be a different person inside it.Also, to me, this is not about whether or not someone should be allowed to be forced into the damn thing. I say no, no one should (including that pig of a dude she's with). But what if she wants to wear it, because she's just as kookoo as her husband?Can we really legitimately prohibit someone from wearing a piece of clothing? Even if it means your as loony as a loony person, or as repressed as the evidence for area 51?The only issue I see, although, I now admit it's looking rather hard to coherently put together, is the id issue. That's about all I can think of to prohibit this.Look at it this way, if there were a bunch of guys and gals, and they wanted to parade through the streets telling everybody what low life, good for nothing, pieces of shit they are by wearing a t-shirt that says just that, would you want to stop them from doing so?If however it was conclusively shown that one of the guys/gals was forced into this situation, then I say we have a mandate to free her from that predicament.

It varies state to state. Some places you can some places you cannot.- Oni

What is it exactly you cannot do in some places? Gather in hoods?If we decided to hold a KKK piss-take party where we all (Hispanics, blacks, French etc. etc.) dressed up in KKK costumes in an attempt at comedic irony - Would we be breaking the law?Which states have such a law? (just in case I decide to hold such a party - so as I know where to avoid)

Its called an Anti-Mask Law. What you can't do (and the exact details vary from state-to-state) is have masked gatherings in public places.Exceptions are made for holidays, sport events, and shit like that. At a party? No. But you couldn't gather outside of a court house with the same attempt at comedic irony. I found this article which deals with New Yorks anti-mask law. As I googled it, Georgia came up too. I think all states actually have some kind of anti-mask law, but I'm not 100% sure.- Oni

And just try and enter a bank, courthouse or airport with a mask on and see how far you get! Here in Florida, many banks request that you remove hats and sunglasses upon entering for obvious reasons.Edited by kjsimons, : typo

Different to whom? I'm saying go right ahead - with the proviso that a close male relative walks along behind her, attached to a leash fixed around his neck, or some similar arrangement, in order to demonstrate beyond doubt that she's the one in control. If there's a law that says so then it would be legitimate. But if we follow my suggestion, it wouldn't be necessary. I still don't understand why you're so hung up on this ID thing. I mean, if you're walking through a large city, and you can see everyone's faces, can you identify them? How do you know who they are? Why do you need to know who they are? It's obviously necessary in specific situations that anyone should have to remove facial coverings to identify themselves. I'd certainly back any law that stated people have the right to demand this on their own property, in public buildings and, of course, on demand by authorities where personal identification is necessary. I've already said I'd be very happy for them to do so. Absolutely!

The wife of the dude. But you don't know if she's in there, do you. No it isn't. Like a state law in the US that says the state can have crosses on the lawn of its governmental building isn't legitimate. I wouldn't support your suggestion, not would I support any suggestion that forces people to wear something. If I were looking for them, yes. If I'm looking for them I'd know. Becuase I'm looking for them. Yes. Not having this covering at all would help. And what if the authorities demand that a face should be visible at all times? Great. Yay!

I never said it had to be a husband and wife arrangement. It doesn't matter who is under the Burka. It could be another man or ET for all I care. All that's important is to publically demonstrate that whoever is under the Burka is not being forced to wear it because they are considered by someone else to be inferior. So if someone accompanies them and publically declares that they are inferior to the person who is covered up, that would seem a satisfactory arrangement - to me at least!. If she (whoever "she" is) is not in there, then there's no problem is there? Life's complicated enough, without having to worry about what peculiar arrangements they have the US and A! Then we'd be living in some kind of ultra-fascist state, which would mean we'd have much bigger problems than a few women walking around in mobile tents. In any case, we go back to the sunglasses, wigs, hats, scarfs, argument.

I've seen a lot of banks here with little pictures on the door symbolising 'no food, no pets, no guns, no cameras', but this doesn't require a general ban on any of the above. These are specific bans for specific situations, and they're on private premises, not in a public space.

There's a sense that there is no good answer and that there is a lot of gray area.The government basically says that the burqa serves no purpose, especially in light of other forms of traditional Islamic garb. They express concerns that it could be used to conceal one's identity. But since when was it a crime to conceal your face when walking around?Could I not walk around with a ski mask if I wanted to? Sure, I'd probably get funny looks but is it a crime? Seems to me that you couldn't merely go after the burqa, but state that one cannot intentionally conceal yourself in public places, otherwise it sends the message that they are specifically targeting muslims.And let's not be coy, isn't that exactly what's going on -- The proposed burgeoning crisis of Islamo-fascist invaders has Europeans on an all-time alert.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

By making someone else state that he/she/it is inferior? No, for you would be forcing someone else into wearing what they quite possibly don't want to wear. The only problem is the forceful wearing of something (or id, no not letting this slide just yet ). If you choose to look like a loony, be my guest. True, true. Why? What's the problem with being recognizable? Yes, problems, problems. Dammit!

You're quite right.Of course, I don't really expect anyone to bring in a law along the lines of what I've suggested. I'm really making more of a statement.What I'm trying to say in my usual laboured manner is this:The main argument against the Burka is that it is a demeaning and de-humanising form of clothing forced upon women by a misogynist culture. The counter argument used by apologists for the Burka, at least in the West, is that the women freely choose to wear this garment - it is not something forced upon them by men.We all suspect that that counter argument is pure bullshit. What I'm saying is that if it isn't bullshit, anyone in favour of the Burka (especially men) should be willing to demonstrate in public that they are equally willing to look as ridiculous and de-humanised as the women who wear the Burkas.On the other hand, if they don't want to do that, they are effectively admitting that the Burka is used as a form of control and as an expression of female subservience to menfolk. In that case, let the prosecutions commence. You won't let this issue lie, will you? There's nothing whatsoever wrong with being recognisable. There is also nothing wrong with being unrecognisable, except in obvious situations that I have already mentioned where that may be considered reasonable or necessary. It sounds like you want the kind of society where we might as well have a chip implanted in our heads that gives the authorities a constant update on our every movement. That's a massive invasion of privacy in my book, although we are well on the way to that state of affairs in the UK.