Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

Are you serious or a troll? You wrote 3 lines. You were the one talking about timocracy.I asked you if this was your idea of morals.I also asked more questions but I notice you ignored that too. Nice honesty that...

No, let me remember you what you wrote. You want a majority rule even if it means some harm for a minority.We told you countless times that we already have laws protecting the women you say you want to help but you keep forgetting it like you keep forgetting that most choose to wear the hijab freely.But hey, at least you're honest. We now know who you are and what type of society you want to live in. You can stop pretending you want to protect people except your prefered ones.

ModulousOur ideology does not believe in slavery and to allow what is basically a slave mentality and the display of ones subjugation to exist in our free land should not be allowed.Regards
DL

"but you keep forgetting it like you keep forgetting that most choose to wear the hijab freely."Un-evidenced.Regards
DL

You mean like you didn't post evidence that they're all oppressed by their husbands?Until then, they made the choice freely.

Is it really not possible to have a grown up discussion about this? Is it really necessary to caricature both sides of this argument and not accept that there really are oppressive reasons why women wear full face and body coverings and that there are also real issues of freedom at stake in banning them?Without googling I know that there are at least two modern, western, liberal democracies that have banned these clothes for good reason and that appeals on human rights grounds in the European court have failed.It is not necessarily racist to argue for a ban, but there is also real difficulty balancing this against personal freedom. Given the clmate and the known cultural oppression behind at least some of those that wear these things - as evidenced when it was made illegal to wear them - it seems to me that the balance is in favour of a ban. But I would not personally argue for it - the numbers affected by it in our countries is too small to matter.

Unlike those who's intellectual honesty is lacking, like yourself, I do not enter discussions unprepared. Anyone even passingly familiar with Muslim modesty requirements would have cited this.Sura 24:31And no, you do not get to interpret it for anybody. Devout Muslim women get to interpret it for themselves.Discussion by YouTube opinions is less than trustworthy or conscientious but since your weak mind wants to play that stupid-assed little game I'll oblige.https://youtu.be/t1x5Zu18f7U
https://youtu.be/0jWSDyJiIXg
https://youtu.be/IXEenH4AnmU
https://youtu.be/Y330YukN1b0
https://youtu.be/uSFgHf8qdXoNow tell them why you want this government to abuse their rights.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

YOU are the one who continually ignores what everybody is saying - i.e that YOU are the one who wants to oppress women.You have been shown that some women DO wear the hijab voluntarily. Why do you want to prevent them? Stop evading the question.

We're not just talking about "full face and body coverings" here. There may be viable reasons for banning full face and body coverings in some circumstances.But the argument in this thread includes the hijab. If you can come up with a reason for banning the hijab, beyond racism, feel free to roll it out.

It strikes me that the hijab is a rather lovely thing. It's supposed to protect the modesty of a female by hiding her hair, neck and ears. I can only say that they have been misled if they think it achieves that.As I said earlier, it was quite wrong of the female judge in Canada to refuse hearing the woman wearing the head scarf. Banning it would be absurd.But the burka, nikab and hijab can all be symbols of oppression and ways of subjugating women - we need to recognise that as a simple fact and stop pretending that it is only the woman's choice.

So we could have ended slavery by banning chains? Nobody is pretending any such thing. The point is that if ANY women make the choice, we can not legitimately prevent them. If there is ANY non-oppressive use for chains, we can not legitimately ban them. And banning them wouldn't eliminate the oppression anyway.

Absurd Sure had me fooled. No, that's not the point. They have been banned legitimatey in at least two modern western democracies and those bans have been tested in the European Court of Human Rights. Demonstrably wrong. In those countries where they have been banned it has been for several reasons....

That's what I've been saying - the idea of ending oppression by banning the symbols of oppression is absurd. I can do that three times before breakfast. I have said that a ban may be legitimate in some circumstances. That does not legitimize a blanket ban. What an idiotic thing to say. You can't integrate people by making them uncomfortable.

Yes it does. As demonstrated. Rather, you can't integrate people by allowing them isolate themselves - which is the purpose of these clothings. Those countries took the view that if Muslims they wish to live in them, they need to leave their extreme religious and cultural practices and integrate. The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture.

Don't confuse "legal" with "legitimate". There's nothing "extreme" about a hijab. I don't know if you're deliberately trying to bait and switch....The topic covers the hijab - it's right there in the title - as well as "full body covering". If you can understand the difference, please make that clear. If you think extending a "full body covering" ban to headscarves is sensible, please make that clear too.And please make clear how far you think it is "legitimate" to force immigrants to emulate their host culture. Should turbans be banned? Should long skirts be banned? Should the bindi be banned? Should speaking Hindi or Urdu in public be banned? Just how far are you willing to go to "integrate" newcomers?