The government isn't giving women the freedom to uncover their faces, it's taking away their freedom to have them covered.
[Edited by Paradox, 3/28/2010 2:35:23 PM]
As for the whole idea of the impact of Islam on women. Islamic countries are known for poor treatment of women. Things like requiring a woman to be accompanied by a man at all times when out of the house would be considered kin to slavery here in North America. But those Muslims who live here do have a choice, if a woman wants to wear a Burka or a Hijab then that's her choice. But you have to draw the line somewhere, when crossing the border for example, do you want someone with no face entering your country? I know I don't in mine.
Well I wasn't referring to all Muslim women there may well be plenty who prefer to wear it.
However seeing as they have been covering their face from an early age the way they may become part of the way they have come to identify themselves. I think one of the key words you mentioned is "habit" which is what it is really.
Sooooo, if their religion calls for sexual intercourse with minors...would it be wrong to disallow that?
Or if their religion requires the ownership of slaves?
In a civil, secular society, we accept that some tenants of our particular religions are not conducive to the business of society and we give them up.
Muslims should be treated no differently than Mormons. We don't let Mormons practice polygamy, despite their religion requiring it. We don't allow fringe Christian groups or Santerians to conduct live animal sacrifices.
If head coverings are not conducive to the business of society, they should be given up.
Plus, if I have to remove my sunglasses when I show my ID, then a Muslim woman better damn well remove her veil.
[Edited by Dhampy, 3/28/2010 2:59:02 PM]
Exactly, baptized Sikhs are required to wear a dagger called a Kirpan. But when they board a plane they have to remove it, not because of discrimination but because in the end it is a weapon. Being part of a religion/culture does not mean someone isn't willing to abuse it.
A burka is the same situation. How do you know there isn't a terrorist with explosives strapped to him under there? Google it, it happens.
Public safety > religious freedom
@Elite, just because someone does somethign because they've always done it doesn't mean that's a detrimental to anyone.
Airport worker warned in scanner ogling claim
LONDON (Reuters) - A security worker at London's Heathrow Airport has received a police warning and faces disciplinary action over claims he ogled a female colleague using a full-body scanner, officials said on Wednesday.
The 25-year-old worker made lewd comments after his colleague Jo Margetson, 29, mistakenly strayed into the scanner, which can see through clothes to produce an image of the body, the Sun newspaper reported.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind since the full-body scanners were rushed into service at a number of British airports in the wake of an attempt by a suspected Muslim extremist to blow up a plane bound for Detroit on December 25.
They are now being rolled out at airports across the world.
Details of the incident at Heathrow's Terminal 5 on March 10 emerged on the day lawmakers said concerns that the scanners were intrusive had been overblown.
Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA.
"We treat any allegations of inappropriate behavior or misuse of security equipment very seriously and these claims are being investigated thoroughly," said a spokeswoman for BAA.
"If found to be substantiated, we will take appropriate action."
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said officers had been informed of the allegation and "a first instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old man."
Opponents of scanners have argued since their introduction that they risked breaching individuals' rights to privacy. Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission has already said they might be breaking discrimination and privacy laws.
"For every official caught ogling like this, there are plenty more eyeing up law-abiding travelers," Alex Deane, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, told the Sun.
"These expensive machines are totally disproportionate."
The government says staff using the machines are properly supervised and would not be able to see the person being scanned. All images are deleted.
Britain's parliamentary Home Affairs Committee said fears about the scanners were misplaced and they should be introduced at a faster pace to deal with the threat of terrorism.
"The Committee is satisfied that the privacy concerns that have been expressed in relation to these devices are overstated and ... should not prevent the deployment of scanners," it said in a report.