"An identity reduced to a burka"

Do you know many people frightened of covered women then? because I don't I know some children can be but I also know children afraid of any person they don't know or someone different from them. Your question can also be reversed why should a woman in relation to her own face need to accommodate the desires of other people. Because whether you like it or not banning or not banning is still about pleasing others.

There is no right to see a persons face they don't owe you that, the only time a person face has to be exposed is for necessary identification or security risks.

There are women who are forced by family to wear it in this country and other parts of the world (although banning would only apply here) but there are many who choose to wear it. And wouldn't banning of the burka just mean that those women who are forced to wear it would instead be forced to stay at home? who does banning the burka help?

It is not the case that cannibalism is illegal because the government are worried about people getting CJD!

It is illegal because it is outside the boundaries of what people in this country to be acceptable behaviour. Peculiar to argue otherwise

If you could sterilise dead people's flesh to make it utterly safe for consumption it wouldn't be legalised.

We are a culture that gauges people by their facial expression, Muslim covered women have none. They can be frightening, just like a Golly, the origins of this practice are not compatible with 2011. Why should a women make herself invisible to accommodate the lust of men?

You are consciously trying not to understand my point.

Well yes cooking well would minimise risks but unlike cooking beef (or whatever) all the nefarious organisms present are pathogens of humans. And the fact that we have many food related illnesses in the UK shows that we are not so good with cooking food well and it is best for society to stay away from eating other people allowing more pathogenic diseases to spread.

Also kuru disease is related to the build up of prions (found in humans) which cause neurological damage so cooking does not help with that.

I am not so keen on the 'good of society' mentality when it comes to certain things. When there is genuine risk then it is a credible argument but for things like veils it is really just based on what you think is right rather than what is genuinely 'good'.

Oh if they die of natural causes then no issues. Soylent breen here we come

Cook it like any other meat and you will have no harmful bacteria or parasites in your food.

The ingestion of human flesh can harm society as there are many species specific bacteria/viruses/parasites which will then colonise the person doing the eating facilitating the spread of disease. It has also been linked to Kuru which is a human form of mad cow disease (which is why it is often said cannibalism leads to insanity)

So yes cannibalism is harmful

Who exactly does cannibalism hurt, Riven? The corpse itself?

There are weirdos who leave wills saying they want their bodies to be eaten after their death and even then cannibalism is illegal.

And that is because it is an unacceptable practice in most societies. Just like hiding women away is in some others.

Canibalism hurts others. A face veil does not

Surely the point about the burqa is that it's extremely visible and allows the women to be reduced to her attire alone, she disappears.

Completely agree with CoteDAzur on this.

"To be honest i find the amount of time devoted to what a few women choose to wear astonishing. If you dont like it, dont wear it or talk to a woman wearing it. Ta da."

You can say the same about the ban of any socially unacceptable practice: In Switzerland, it is illegal to publicly say the Holocaust didn't happen. I find the among of time devoted to what a few people choose to say astonishing. If you don't like it, don't say it or don't listen to people saying it. Ta da.

Cannibalism is illegal in most countries. I find the amount of time devoted to what a few people have ever wanted to do astonishing. If you don't like it, don't eat other people's corpses or talk to cannibals. Ta da.

" I don't really trust that the burqua ban is altruistic."

So you think that lawmakers somehow benefited from this ban? How?

Whatever we want to celebrate about Iranian women and what power they may or may not have, in law their lives are worth half a mans. So anything championing Iran as some sort of feminist haven is beyond wrong.

That story is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. He denies it, his wife & colleagues believe him. The timing is curious as he was the only realistic contender to Sarkozy in the presidential elections and now his career is finished. A lot of people think this might be a set-up orchestrated by Sarkozy's people.

Comments on this particular story have very little to do with attitudes to sexual assault in France in general.

If it serves no real purpose the politicans are doing it for political electioneering. I have no faith in any of them now

Cote - probably my fault for not putting it very well. I don't think the state never does anything for the good of the population - but I don't think it initiates things out of pure altruism, either. I don't really trust that the burqua ban is altruistic.

Talking about that blokey in the news regarding attempted rape of a maid in NYC. From the french papers its like sexual harrassment is not only no big deal but almost to be expected from men. Not that its much better here.
To be honest i find the amount of time devoted to what a few women choose to wear astonishing. If you dont like it, dont wear it or talk to a woman wearing it. Ta da.

LRD - I will have to admit that I really don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be think that the state never does anything for general good of the population and only justifies what it does for sinister reasons with "it's for public good".

Riven - I don't know what you are referring to re French men, but surely it is not so horrifying that from now on we should disregard whatever they do.

We did the hows and whys of the burqa ban in France to death on various other threads so I'm hesitant to go into it here. Suffice it to say that the government didn't have to search to "justify" it at all, as the vast majority of all French, including Muslims, supported it.

No, something doesn't have to be particularly harmful to people to be banned. It can just be very much against the mindset or way of life of the people living in that country.

random 'Also,' thrown in at the start there - I think I was still thinking about a different message when I wrote that!

Also, the government funds schools because an educated population is good for the country Cote - that's different to actively banning something.

In most countries people then have the options to use that state funded provision or an alternative. Same with medical treatment, care provision, transport etc.

I'd say that to justify a ban of something you need to demonstrate active harm to individuals or groups, rather than being broadly 'good for society'. Which is a different argument surely? A veil may be a symbol of oppression in some cases, but the veil in and off itself isn't harmful is it? In which case I'd say that what should be banned and punished through the state's legal system is coercion being applied to women to force them to wear a veil or other symbolic clothing for (any) religious or cultural reasons.

If the argument is about security in public places and a need to identify people instead - I'm not sure what I think about that. I'm not really comfortable with such a need for monitoring people.

I come back to find that Cote has said what I would have said.

Yes, I do believe that some things are for the good of society as a whole. What is the problem with saying that? We agree that education is for the good of society as a whole, why is that not seen as totalitarian? It's also generally agreed that nudity on the streets is not acceptable, and this is for the good of society. Why should the burka, as the other extreme, be any different.

LRD - that's what I was also thinking of re worth. Some people have conditions which mean they are unable to perform tasks or perform conscious actions. My ds2 is unable to do much by himself - I do not think this causes him to have no worth.

"Someone should be judged and valued by their actions, not their outfit" No, I believe they should be valued for their humanity.