is this right?

[sherminator]

http://news.bbc.co.uk...ld/europe/8480161.stm


Have to say I personally agree with this ruling. Happy for people to come up with a good argument against and happy to change my views as well if someone can think why this isnt a good thing!

[naomi24]

My point precisely.

Going to bed now. Night all. x

[Rev Sermon]

Naomi,

To answer your last question of me, I don't., perhaps you may have misinterpreted my last post which was written a bit hurriedly before I went to bed. If there is a "real" reason for not covering up then fine, don't allow it, I have no problem with a law of that nature. However in this case the law or regulation should be general not specific, i.e faces must be shown.

Harking back to the original question, the reason for outright banning of the burka in France isn't for practical reasons there would be places where someone could walk in in a hoodie or a face mask quite legally but be banned from wearing a burka because it's "an extremist religious view".

Until someone can satisfy me that No woman wears a burka from her own personal choice (be it religious, modesty or a fashion statement), I don't believe it should be banned on these grounds.

[naomi24]

Rev, //in this case the law or regulation should be general not specific, i.e faces must be shown//

I agree. Therefore, in order that the people wearing hoodies, motobike helmets, et al, are not specifically targeted as they are at present, people wearing burkas should be subject to the same ruling.

[Ankou]

are hoodies and crash helmets banned in public places ?

they might be banned on private premises by the landlords/business owners, such as shopping centres and banks - but i didn't know it was a statutory law.

gosh, fancy that.

[naomi24]

Ankou, who said it's statutory law? I must have missed that.

[Ankou]

so it isn;t against the law to wear hoodies and crash helmets in public places ?

they are only specifiically targeted by individual businesses. so how can you say burkas should be subject to the same treatment and claim support for an outright ban (i.e.law/statute) declaring as such. that doesn't sound like equal treatment to me.

[naomi24]

I can say it easily because the people wearing burkas aren't targeted at all, and that doesn't sound like equal treatment to me.

[123everton]

If the ban is on public buildings does that mean women getting married in a registry office cannot wear a veil also?
If so is that fair?
Ladies, would you be happy being told what you can not/must not wear for your wedding?

[naomi24]

Ha ha! Everton, you really are scraping the barrel now.

[123everton]

Ah, I see, you support this law just so long as it doesn't apply to you and your kind....

[naomi24]

Who are my kind?

[123everton]

Your family anyone you like, non-Muslims as a whole, take your pick.

[naomi24]

Everton, you're being a bit silly here. If you feel you have a valid point, then argue it. You know absolutely nothing about me, but as always happens you've started slinging personal remarks so it's pretty obvious that, once again, you're at a loss to offer a rational response.

[123everton]

I don't see the insult, but hey ho, so you think there should be an exemption for marriages?

[naomi24]

No, of course you don't. You never do.

As for your question, bridal veils are transparent. They do not conceal the bride's identity.

[123everton]

So it's not the veil you object to, just the thickness?
Shall we have a governmental regulation standard veil?
Could this be the beginning of a compromise?
Naomi, you're being a little over sensitive but just for you, I'll reword my original question, you are not against the law just so as it only affects Keyplus and his kind?
Is that better?

[naomi24]

Everton, do try to keep your argument sensible. You're being silly again.

I'm not against anyone, but it's simply wrong to have one rule for one and a different rule for another. Clearly you support discrimination.

[ummmm]

Doesn't a bride just walk down the aisle in a veil?