So you are suggesting that we – the “banning” kind – mix all issues together in unison? In reality, porn exists only (legally anyway) in liberal societies, not repressed ones. And this tells me everything I need to know about the issue of porn. But if feminists do want to ban porn, than that’s their call.

Ironically, there is a big number of feminists who do oppose the niqab on the same grounds as I do.

“And lastly, I think both of you misunderstand the definition of a ‘liberal democracy’, especially the first word.”

Perhaps. To me, it is a form of government that emphasises on the protection of individual rights and freedoms. And I see the niqab as a violation of those rights and freedoms. You don’t – you see it as a an expression of that freedom.

Objectively speaking, the niqab effectively curbs integration, job opportunities, and isolates women from society. It says misogynism all over. I don’t see how that empowers women or facilitates integration in our society. And I haven’t seen anyone disagree with me on these points, and yet…

We all agree that education empowers people, and for that reason education is compulsory – for males and females – up to a certain age. What if there is a religious/cultural edict that says that women should not be educated? What right has the government to force this group to be educated against their will (or their parents)? So, is it a violation of freedom, or instead, inforcing that freedom? After all, having no education will not give you the freedom to choose your career, and forces you to be dependent on someone else.

When you quoted me here:

“Well, are tattoos a good thing?”

I thought you were about to engage with my admitted prejudice. Of course, you did no such thing. I might just as easily have argued that I don’t like chavs, or shell suited wee naffs. Or Buckfast enhanced juvenile delinquency.

Taking the arguement forward, and given my prejudice, which is genuine by the way, I cannot for a moment believe that a women want’s to have a tattoo. It is a quite obvious social construct, a ludicrous fashion statement if you will. It is an attempt by otherwise sensible females to be ‘liberated’. Hah! It is mutilation as fashion. But is it Art? No, it is not.

They would argue that it is their freedom to deface themselves, and I am sure that they are right. But is it a freedom too far? Should we not have a law?

Try engaging with that. In the context of the niqab.

I can be just as illiberal in my own way as are the anti niqab faction. Keeping shtum about my prejudices might have stood me in good stead, if you see what I mean.

I am writing this whilst eating prawns. Surely Sunny, or someone, ought to impose a ban on that sort of behaviour? Pretty obvious degraded behavior, huh? Unless you’re Australian, where it is, probably, a cultural imperative.

Funny, most feminists don’t see it that way. The point is simple – if you want to ban things you think are sexist or you find offensive, then why not let others in on the act? The law, after all, should treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I think both of you misunderstand the definition of a ‘liberal democracy’, especially the first word.

Apples and oranges. Porn is a multi-million industry with well-paid actresses (men are paid very poorly). If anything, porn exploits men.

“Well, are tattoos a good thing?”

I cannot imagine for a moment that a woman would want to wear a niqab, on a very hot day, in a park, in London when the vast majority of women around are not, not to mention how unconfortable it must be. I would be less troubled if she had a choice, but I feel there is pressure to keep the same practises as back home. In that sense, it falls in the camp of misogyny, as it effectively segregates and isolates women from society.

I am not for creating laws that ban niqabs. But I do wish the government could find ways to effectively discourage them.

You said this:

“the niqab is a misogynist construct, and completely out of place in a liberal society. It hinders any integration in our society at large, and work opportunities, not to mention it is a health hazzard.”

Well, are tattoos a good thing? Or how about the lunatics with studs everywhere? These are apparently expressions of freedom. Personally, I would send them all to hell. The fact that I can’t is what we call plurarlism. I might hate it, and I do, but it is not my business to restrict folk from being mongers, now, is it?

Sometimes you just have to accept that human beings are idiots.

Many argue that porn is also a misogynist construct. I look forward to you guys running a campaign to ban that too.

One might argue that its all this modern technology that is supporting these ridiculous population sizes and that over crowding is making people unhappy.

Oh! if only the black death would return and we all could wear sandles and live in caves!

TFI

Douglas, this is not a question of your personal taste in fashion. And no one is defending that there should be a fashion police.

But the niqab is a misogynist construct, and completely out of place in a liberal society. It hinders any integration in our society at large, and work opportunities, not to mention it is a health hazzard.

I understand it is very difficult to make laws to forbid these type of things, but I am sure with some imagination, the government can provide incentives for people to stop using such backward and offensive attire in public.

Well, string vests are an affront to humanity, are they not? Perhaps we could agree on that? Can’t find a picture of Rab C Nesbitt, but it has to be at least an issue for the UN.

Personally, I don’t like the niqab. But there are a hell of a lot of things I don’t like, that I have to tolerate. Why? Because ‘I’ am not ‘them’. I doubt very much that the woman wearing a niqab in my local supermarket was actually in fear of being violated. Quite why she chose to wear it is, frankly, up to her, hopefully. But fear of violation in the Sainsburys Fruit and Veg isle strikes me as the least of her worries. It is verging on totalitarian to suggest that dress should be conscripted into the new paradigm that, if there is a subject, then there must be a law for it.

I was quite sickened with this comment you made earlier, perhaps you’d care to withdraw it?

“Those who insist on clinging onto their pathetic superstitions, well, natural selection will take care of them just as it did many other species over the course of this planet’s history”

You have a complete misunderstanding of what natural selection is about. It is not, as you seem to think, predetermined towards progress, it is, in fact, predicated on the idea that environment shapes species.

Dawkins has said the obvious. That whilst he is a scientific Darwinist, he is not – three cheers! – a social Darwinist. Neither am I. We have a brain which we could use to ameliorate the bad side of evolution, rather than seeing it as a proto fascist excuse for evil.

I am, frankly, quite irritated at you.

Started reading minds have you? And anyway, a person can think what they want to.

What do you want, the government to regulate what people are thinking? Even if you physically outlaw the niqab, it won’t stop prejudice. In the same way, I wouldn’t want racist nutjobs behind prison for not having done anything physically threatening. I thought you were a libertarian Morgoth. Turns out you’re quite the ‘the state should tell you what to think and wear’ fantasist.

No.

Take for example, the veil. It is saying, to every man “I wear this because if I don’t, I think you will rape me.”

The ‘improvements’ of technology and atheism aren’t making the quality of people’s lives any better. In fact, the lack of meaning that they are providing is setting people on a path to self-destruction.

If the principle of survival of the fittest comes into play it will be the poor, miserable, depressed creatures that have been created by the very rejection of anything that can’t be measured by a ruler.

But by that account you probably don’t consider yourself to have a heart or compassion either.

“Those who insist on clinging onto their pathetic superstitions, well, natural selection will take care of them just as it did many other species over the course of this planet’s history”

Yes, dinosaurs were known to be very religious and full of pathetic superstitions….;)

I’m afraid the example is terrible… and doesn’t support your argument.

By being religious or having faith, a person is only affecting themselves… whether they choose to dance around a fire, get married around it or draw pictures of it. Same with wearing religious garments.

We have laws against paedophilia and slavery because they involve the subjugation of others against their will. You’d have to prove convincingly that most people who believe in god etc don’t actually want to believe in God. Heh.

If someone freely wishes to do so, then why not?