So, if I'm to understand you correctly laws that you are arguing for is ban the of the Burqa in situations when the identity of the women is important like voting, banking ect...
But that is not what's being discussed here Europe, it's a complete ban, everywhere expect in your home. The laws you have in Canada is all ready in effect here, a bank will deny you service if they can't identify you and so on.
The Islamic Dress Code Council of Britain would like to inform you on the following matter.
After further examination of the Islam4Love Videos on SAUDI-TOOB ( Showing Women playing Bowling in a Veil ) our Executive Staff in concordance with Allah and his Apostle, came to the following conclusion:
A) Playing Bowling in a Burka, and:
B) Learning Martial Arts in a Ninja-Burka is not possible
The Wearing of such Garments in such Establishments is thus forbidden
The burqa was not invented by the taliban even though the Afghan women have always worn a similar sort of traditional dress. The taliban implemented the burqa because they follow the Saudi funded Wahabi form of Islam. That sort of clothing is more of a Saudi cultural thing. The Saudi women have worn it since pre-Islamic days. Islam does not require you to wear a full burqa but just says that one should dress modestly. However ppl should be free to wear what they want, that icludes a burqa.
Nuke P I S S L A M ( and FuUcCkK all these traitorous Snakes who help em ) FuUcCkK Liberal Traitors FuUcCkK Fabians FuUcCkK Marxist-LSE-Think Tanks FuUcCkK Common Purpose FuUcCkK This Pig Gordon Brown ( The worst Traitor in the UK ) FuUcCkK The Fifth Column FuUcCkK the EU and the UN FuUcCkK All those who will leave their own Children live in a mediaeval Savage Night Mare , which has never ever been seen before on Earth. FuUcCkK all the Media, which is hiding everyday the Slaughter the Brutality
no no no, i think Coughlan666 said that Brits usually describe French with all those "nice descriptions" but now because France wants to ban the burka, the same people that were taking the micky out of the French are regarding them as hero's...
I find it interesting that you seemed to be the only one who spotted this mistake - just shows how many Muslims are ignorant about their own religion.
Richard started quite well with his atheist poem, but his channel has deterioted into a desperate attempt to get new subscribers.
I think you let him of lightly. I counted at least 10 logical fallacies in his video. He called Pat something like a 'fucking twat' then a minute later said he had nothing against Pat. He said in UK we will lose our right to wear what we want - we do not have that right (Straw man)
He accused Pat of going right wing, because the BNP pretend to support him, they don't. I've heard the same argument against Obama because of Galloways support.
After inferring Pat was racist, he then said people who opposed Sharia Law in UK were inferring that it incuded stoning. People are opposed to Sharia Law simply because it is sexist and racist.
When I called him on that he deleted my comment and blocked me!
No problem. I didn't catch all the logical fallacies...but then again, I only watched that 17 minute behemoth video once, and the only one that really struck me then was the slippery slope. And thanks for subbing!
There is no serious movement to replace UK Law with Sharia Law. Preachers on both sides may screach something different, if you listen to what the politicians are saying it's clear it isn't on the table.
What is being considered is permitting Sharia 'Courts' to act as community arbitration. It would be strictly voluntary for all involved and the judgements could not supercede UK Law.
Indeed, a plaintiff could reject the Sharia decision entirely if they chose and follow actual legal recourse.
Indeed, a plaintiff could reject the Sharia decision entirely if they chose and follow actual legal recourse - how do you know that they are aware of that? and even if they are because of the problems I have already cited would it make any difference?
'why interfere with how a person wants to live their life?'
I do not believe that any genuinely free and informed woman is going to voluntarily concede her legal entitlement to inheritance on the basis that she is worth half a man.
The only people who are going to do that are going to be vulnerable in some way such people should be protected by the law.
I never said you did. I was making my own foundation statement.
''...Preachers' and what are these 'sides'...'
I was being deliberately unspecific because I speaking generally. There are Muslims calling for an Islamic state in the UK just as there are islamaphobes claiming that this is the goal of all muslims... I was including these two broad, fringe groups.
''these courts are in action now! '
Not everywhere. They have been tried in a few places and seem to work.
'You want a complete demographical study of peoples views of the intentions of islamic peoples in the UK in a 500 character YT comment?'
Yet another strawman - that is not what I said - that is what you said you are attempting to 'put words into my mouth' again because you are unable to answer the actual point I made.
Thus far you haven't made a point, atleast not a coherent one.
The point I made, which you trolled, was that suplementary Sharia Courts have been tried in some places, have worked well with the UK legal system and are being proposed for a wider implementation.
I'll make it simple for you, name one of these 'Islamophobes' who you are saying that an Islamic state in the UK is the goal for all Muslims?
You have managed to put a neologistic ad hominem 'Islamphobia' in a Red Herring 'preachers' based on a Strawman replace 'UK Law with Sharia Law' - a triple logical fallacy congratulations!!!
@DontBendOverForAllah about Coughlan666, I watched one of his videos and wondered why would anyone pay attention to someone like him.
I recently saw that he posted a video called" Pat is an ignorant hypocrite idiot" or something like that, ( I did not watch it )he does not realize that he is the idiot .
He will NEVER be like Pat, I think he envies him and posts idiotic videos to stir up controversy in an attempt to get attention and subscribers, BUT he miserably fails!
You are right! coughlan666 started off as a standup comedian channel (he is trying to make a living from his Youtube channel) - he failed. He then realised that the atheist community was huge and joined in with that. He thinks he should be the most subscribed atheist on Youtube, but since he is to scared to criticise Islam that is never going to happen, so he has been running 'smear' campaigns on both Pat and thunderf00t to try and reduce their subscriber base.
@Universefreedom If you didn't watch Coughlan's video about Condell, then how can you possibly know you disagree with him? How can you judge someone based only on the fact that they disagree with someone who says stuff you like to believe? You might be interested to see WHY he disagrees with him and on what issues.
No I didn't. If you are talking about the niqab I've seen those as long as I can remember. The burqa was in the UK in 88 when I started secondary school.
It was the very fact that it was not a niqab, but something even more severe, that caught my attention.
Well, it's odd that you're remembering a garment that, from all I can tell from the reading I've done, was designed in the early '90s as a more severe and modest version of a garment that was the exclusive domain of wealthy Afghan housewives for he past few hundred years (one which was breathable, came in many colours and was only imposed by husbands on their wives).
There are a lot of vestments that are similar to the burqa. The abaya is another one. However, the burqa itself is different in a few aspects. Firstly, it cannot be decorated (as abayas often are) and it is styled differently, so the women who wear it are more shapeless. Again, the burqa was only used from the Taliban's takeover onward, though it was based on an earlier outfit worn by certain Afghan women. It's not a longstanding tradition, as many claim.
I hate being proved wrong. You are right though, on this point. The girls at school had brocaide around the eye mesh and different colours, mostly blue.
I'm still thinking people will have issue with it though, as it still covers the face.
So hiding eyes is fine, ears and hair are fine, but nose and mouth arn't?
What about snoods (remember them?) or big neck scarves? The Chavs around me zip up the collar on their tracksuits to just under their noses... can't see their mouths.
There is a massive market for fake tan in the UK. Should we ban that? That attempts to disguise the colour of skin. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that.
What if I wear a hat, scarf and sunglasses and wear fake tan? Should they throw me out of a bank?
If you're covering yourself in a way that reasonably hides your identity, then yes, they should throw you out of any place that you'd reasonably expect to be hit with some sort of illegal activity, or at least told to remove the offending garment.
That is the thing about heavily socialized democracies such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries. The creation of crimes that only effect the person committing them, in the name of social stability or whatever bullshit that is brought up.
Wow, Boundless, you really do lack analytical skills. Your logic is completely backwards. Coughlan has way more subs than you. You're small potatoes. If Ben was a "fucking subwhore", as you put it, then he would have responded to Coughlan in a more agressive manner in order to start drama and attract more attention. Ben responded to you the way he did because he is DISSAPOINTED in you. The fact that you're an old friend adds to that DISSAPOINTMENT. Claiming it's about subs, makes you look dumb.
I find it perfectly logical to deduce that one doesn't risk one's channel by attacking someone with over 400 times their own subcribers, but hey, you're just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Good ol' free speech.
The fact that we used to be friends also shows that I may in fact know his mentality better than you. but what the hey. =)
Your videos are full of comments from Ben, which indicate that he really cared for you in the past. Like I said, he responded to you the way he did because he was DISSAPOINTED in you, someone he probably still cares about. Coughlan may have more subs, but a lot of Coughlan's subs AGREE WITH CONDELL, thus Ben getting angry at Coughlan wouldn't hurt him. The Condell fans who also sub to Coughlan would side with Ben and make up for anything he lost and then some. : - )
dude saudia arabia is full of burkha..y did u say that it orginated from afghanistan..ur arguments are on desire not on facts..go to eqypt n every country u will find burqas there..its not related to taliban..yes u have the right to ban burkha only if u stop imposing the freedom of blah blah on everybody by what in the name u occupy our lands and rape our women even ur own army women..lol...u can make ppl walk naked on ur streets but do not bring ur shit system on our lands.
Saudi Arabia has other outfits that look similar to the bura, but are not. They generally wear a long dress plus a niqab, which is slightly more revealing than the burqa and has another style.
There are a total of 2 muslim countries where western forces occupy.
but the dress is since the starting of islam y is it now that the world is talkin about freedom of this and that it has to be banned..islam has been in world for more then 1400 years why is it after 9/11 most of the action is against muslims? the government brainswashed the common ppl thru media n left us no corner except to fight to survive..but no problem there are dark ages for every nation n its our time n no body can help us only the God who believe in.
n yeah ur biknis and naked beaches portrays mordern age....its about modesty...ur dress represents who ur. if a women do not want to show her face to some desperate guys then its her will. n if u think they have dark age mentaliity thn try to sit with them n talk may be u will get a light.
Oh please. Muslim men are basically taught that when a woman dresses provocatively, and gets raped it's her fault. (search google for rape in Saudi Arabia, and you'll find story after story of the VICTIM being punished)
This give Muslim men a license to rape women, and essentially forces women to cover themselves.
Some Muslim women may say they have no problem wearing such clothing, but it's because they have likewise bought into the belief that they have an obligation to cover themselves because men are unable to control their penises.
lol ur soldiers who are fighthing in afghansitan u should see their condition as they cant live without a pussy n alchol there even the contractors raped their own soldier women and killed her..women are not forced to wear burqa atleast in Western civilization n here if ur tht despo u have red lights n blondes in ur country are ready to go into bed at the cost of one beer..its their own choicei do not know where u get ur info from maybe some envy christain or atheist site. be rationalntemotional
Which would suggest that they don't want attention. Wearing that in a place where it's not common is attention seeking, which is antithetical of modesty
we can keep on arguing on tht....well there are differences in what u call modesty because of our background and upbringing. it is ur country it is ur right to do what ever u want to do i hope these muslims return to their lands n get the corruptness out of here so we can live peacefully with our own values and culture without begging it at the door of people who do not understand it.
"well there are differences in what u call modesty because of our background and upbringing."
The very definition of the word "modesty" includes avoiding attention. That's what I'm saying. What constitutes modest dress is up for debate, generally, but anything that brings attention to someone is NOT modest
I think that particular nuance of the word is literally lost in translation. Some concepts translate from one culture to another exactly and others do not. I think that the 'modesty' that theburqa serves is entirely about hiding the female body from view, not hiding the woman herself.
As example, the Victorians used to put socks on the ankles of piano legs in order to avoid embarrassing Americans, who they considered considerably more prudish. Modesty that stands out... it's an amazing fail.
I still believe Condell was wrong to say the burka (and/or the other outfit who's name I can neither spell nor pronounce) should be banned (though I have reason to suspect Pat's performance was mostly tongue-in-cheek).
No item of clothing should ever be banned... period.
There's a world of difference in legislating safety, and legislating clothing (not that I believe either should be written in law).
"He said what he meant pretty clearly, and he seems to agree with me. "
I could see it argued either way; he does seem to favour complete removal of the garment from Britain altogether, but his words, directly, say "public transport, and in public buildings, and anywhere else that other people are expected to show their face as a matter of course".
The question is, how far do you take that?
I'm expected, as a matter of course, to show my face as I walk down a public sidewalk. (For example)
It might be a self fulfilling prophecy, if the same logic can be used to ban other things. Can one reasonably say "it conceals your identity" about turbans or beards?
Regarding the Burqa; Pat Condel was advocating outright banning the garment, not implementing some sort of reasonable law regarding votingbooths, banks and the like. The two issues are seperate. I agree fully with you that in places like that any disguise is not a good idea, and seperate laws can be made for these areas. But to ban the garment completely will just serve to further segregate these people from the society they live in. They will stay inside, or they will be kept inside.
"[...]personally I would ban [the Burqa] on public transports and in public buildings and anywhere else other people are expected to show their faces as a matter of course. I also think that shops and banks should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody in disguise. [...]"
To me it is pretty clear that he advocated a full ban on the burqa. especially since he later, admittedly in jest, says that only muslim men should be forced to wear the burqa.
See, that's the part that makes me think he only wants it banned in particular circumstances. He specified where he wants it banned. If he didn't specify, I'd think it reasonable to say he advocated a full ban.
It is the "anywhere people are expected to show their face as a metter of course" that is a bit too general for my tastes. that could mean anything from walking down the street, or driving your car, to the specific examples he gave. the fact that he says "also" to me means he has something wider in mind. But i get the sense that, at least, you and I are in agreement then.
I think it's fair to say he wants the burqa banned in any kind of public area. Considering it is only worn when going out in public, this suggests an all out ban in all but name.
I have to agree, but certain types of dress are not appropriate for some circumstances, and in some circumstances, such as when it's a risk to safety, this should be enforced by law.
You probably think that they do, but no, those sunglasses do not make you look cool.
Actually, they make you look like a dunce.
Subscription request denied!
1GodOnlyOne 9 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Subscription "request"? What the hell?
BENY0HAMA 9 months ago
So, if I'm to understand you correctly laws that you are arguing for is ban the of the Burqa in situations when the identity of the women is important like voting, banking ect...
But that is not what's being discussed here Europe, it's a complete ban, everywhere expect in your home. The laws you have in Canada is all ready in effect here, a bank will deny you service if they can't identify you and so on.
I think Mr 666 is OK with that.
Doluses 1 year ago
You take the dick or you take the piss in your butt...
adamalden 2 years ago
666 turn that upside down and you get 999 the sign of the devil or allah
jonwvin 2 years ago
@jonwvin ur wrong- its 786.
get educated.
baliG83 2 years ago
Even better i will do what i can to allow that freedom to others.
The history of the Burkha is totally irrelevant to that.
and you proved the best argument against bans..when IDENTIFICATION is required that obviously can be accomplished without bans.
Now im gonna put on my ass free chaps and go for a walk in the park..sweet freedom
Shikami42 2 years ago
Its not a slippery slope argument. Its an argument from moral principle.
->The golden rule.
I would not accept rules hat limit my choices of clothing so i will not enforce it on others.
Shikami42 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The Islamic Dress Code Council of Britain would like to inform you on the following matter.
After further examination of the Islam4Love Videos on SAUDI-TOOB ( Showing Women playing Bowling in a Veil ) our Executive Staff in concordance with Allah and his Apostle, came to the following conclusion:
A) Playing Bowling in a Burka, and:
B) Learning Martial Arts in a Ninja-Burka is not possible
The Wearing of such Garments in such Establishments is thus forbidden
Hail Hitler!
aishasgoat 2 years ago
this guy is stupid
kodz2204 2 years ago
dude these sunglasses are basicly the greatest thing on earth!
i would bee the overdude with that sunglasses riding on my camel down the desert!
sorry for not responding too the video, but this guy has no clue waht he is talking about!
atleast 6 mistakes who are just wrong !
mehditalib 2 years ago
The burqa was not invented by the taliban even though the Afghan women have always worn a similar sort of traditional dress. The taliban implemented the burqa because they follow the Saudi funded Wahabi form of Islam. That sort of clothing is more of a Saudi cultural thing. The Saudi women have worn it since pre-Islamic days. Islam does not require you to wear a full burqa but just says that one should dress modestly. However ppl should be free to wear what they want, that icludes a burqa.
umkh 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
allymetoo 2 years ago
no no no, i think Coughlan666 said that Brits usually describe French with all those "nice descriptions" but now because France wants to ban the burka, the same people that were taking the micky out of the French are regarding them as hero's...
ISLAMIC0NTENT 2 years ago
Comment removed
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Yep,
I made the same mistake so it is in fact
Hijab = headscarf
Niqab = headscarf + facescarf, eyes are still showing
Burqa = headscarf + complete covering of the face with a facenet, eyes cannot be seen
Is that right?
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Hijab is a verb for covering. There are plenty of different headscarves.
I was mistaken. The niqab is just the facescarf/veil, but it's almost always used with a headscarf
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
I stand corrected again!
I find it interesting that you seemed to be the only one who spotted this mistake - just shows how many Muslims are ignorant about their own religion.
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Richard started quite well with his atheist poem, but his channel has deterioted into a desperate attempt to get new subscribers.
I think you let him of lightly. I counted at least 10 logical fallacies in his video. He called Pat something like a 'fucking twat' then a minute later said he had nothing against Pat. He said in UK we will lose our right to wear what we want - we do not have that right (Straw man)
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
He accused Pat of going right wing, because the BNP pretend to support him, they don't. I've heard the same argument against Obama because of Galloways support.
After inferring Pat was racist, he then said people who opposed Sharia Law in UK were inferring that it incuded stoning. People are opposed to Sharia Law simply because it is sexist and racist.
When I called him on that he deleted my comment and blocked me!
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Another excellent video I should have subbed ages ago.
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Thanks for letting me repost the comments that Coughlan666 deleted.
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
No problem. I didn't catch all the logical fallacies...but then again, I only watched that 17 minute behemoth video once, and the only one that really struck me then was the slippery slope. And thanks for subbing!
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
There is no serious movement to replace UK Law with Sharia Law. Preachers on both sides may screach something different, if you listen to what the politicians are saying it's clear it isn't on the table.
What is being considered is permitting Sharia 'Courts' to act as community arbitration. It would be strictly voluntary for all involved and the judgements could not supercede UK Law.
Indeed, a plaintiff could reject the Sharia decision entirely if they chose and follow actual legal recourse.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
'There is no serious movement to replace UK Law with Sharia Law.'
Duh? - I never said that
'Preachers on both sides may screach something different'
Who are these 'Preachers' and what are these 'sides'
What is being considered is permitting Sharia 'Courts' to act as community arbitration.
'being considered' WRONG these courts are in action now!
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
'community arbitration.' whilst they do that they are also allowed to rule in civil matters, these rulings are then legally enforceable in UK courts.
In Sharia Law a woman is entitled to half the inheritance of a man. That is degrading, repressive, sexist and racist.
'voluntary'? what in families where children are engaged at 8 to complete strangers and honour killings take place - do you seriously buy that?
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Indeed, a plaintiff could reject the Sharia decision entirely if they chose and follow actual legal recourse - how do you know that they are aware of that? and even if they are because of the problems I have already cited would it make any difference?
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
'would it make any difference? '
In a country where Sharia is enforced, no, it would not. Here in a country where it is not, yes it makes a difference.
Are Muslims aware... probably not all of them - but that is a separate issue. Here is the crux, though.
So long as no UK law is violated, why interfere with how a person wants to live their life?
I don't care if you want to stuff kippers in your pants or prey to a rock, so long as you don't break the law of the land.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
'why interfere with how a person wants to live their life?'
I do not believe that any genuinely free and informed woman is going to voluntarily concede her legal entitlement to inheritance on the basis that she is worth half a man.
The only people who are going to do that are going to be vulnerable in some way such people should be protected by the law.
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
'Duh? - I never said that'
I never said you did. I was making my own foundation statement.
''...Preachers' and what are these 'sides'...'
I was being deliberately unspecific because I speaking generally. There are Muslims calling for an Islamic state in the UK just as there are islamaphobes claiming that this is the goal of all muslims... I was including these two broad, fringe groups.
''these courts are in action now! '
Not everywhere. They have been tried in a few places and seem to work.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Well if you can't back up your assertion with evidence and it had no bearing on my comment anyway - I'll ignore it
Not everywhere - again irrelevent
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
You want a complete demographical study of peoples views of the intentions of islamic peoples in the UK in a 500 character YT comment?
Okay I want you to provide an indepth medical analysis of the mental health of Muslims in the UK to back up YOUR unsubstantiated claims above.
'Not everywhere - again irrelevent'
Says you. Thankfully your opinion and a penny will buy me a penny sweet.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
'You want a complete demographical study of peoples views of the intentions of islamic peoples in the UK in a 500 character YT comment?'
Yet another strawman - that is not what I said - that is what you said you are attempting to 'put words into my mouth' again because you are unable to answer the actual point I made.
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
Thus far you haven't made a point, atleast not a coherent one.
The point I made, which you trolled, was that suplementary Sharia Courts have been tried in some places, have worked well with the UK legal system and are being proposed for a wider implementation.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
I'll make it simple for you, name one of these 'Islamophobes' who you are saying that an Islamic state in the UK is the goal for all Muslims?
You have managed to put a neologistic ad hominem 'Islamphobia' in a Red Herring 'preachers' based on a Strawman replace 'UK Law with Sharia Law' - a triple logical fallacy congratulations!!!
DontBendOverForAllah 2 years ago
@DontBendOverForAllah about Coughlan666, I watched one of his videos and wondered why would anyone pay attention to someone like him.
I recently saw that he posted a video called" Pat is an ignorant hypocrite idiot" or something like that, ( I did not watch it )he does not realize that he is the idiot .
He will NEVER be like Pat, I think he envies him and posts idiotic videos to stir up controversy in an attempt to get attention and subscribers, BUT he miserably fails!
Universefreedom 1 year ago
@Universefreedom
You are right! coughlan666 started off as a standup comedian channel (he is trying to make a living from his Youtube channel) - he failed. He then realised that the atheist community was huge and joined in with that. He thinks he should be the most subscribed atheist on Youtube, but since he is to scared to criticise Islam that is never going to happen, so he has been running 'smear' campaigns on both Pat and thunderf00t to try and reduce their subscriber base.
DontBendOverForAllah 1 year ago
@Universefreedom If you didn't watch Coughlan's video about Condell, then how can you possibly know you disagree with him? How can you judge someone based only on the fact that they disagree with someone who says stuff you like to believe? You might be interested to see WHY he disagrees with him and on what issues.
alexvegas 1 year ago
The burqa was around in the 80's at least because that was when I saw my first one. That was in the UK.
That's the full darth vader thing, not just a veil and headscarf.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
You likely mistook the niqab as the headset of the burqa.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
No I didn't. If you are talking about the niqab I've seen those as long as I can remember. The burqa was in the UK in 88 when I started secondary school.
It was the very fact that it was not a niqab, but something even more severe, that caught my attention.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Well, it's odd that you're remembering a garment that, from all I can tell from the reading I've done, was designed in the early '90s as a more severe and modest version of a garment that was the exclusive domain of wealthy Afghan housewives for he past few hundred years (one which was breathable, came in many colours and was only imposed by husbands on their wives).
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Okay, I've gone and done a bit of searching around and it could have been a Chadri... but I'm not too sure.
I know when our teachers refer to them we were told not to judge the girls on their 'vestments'.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
There are a lot of vestments that are similar to the burqa. The abaya is another one. However, the burqa itself is different in a few aspects. Firstly, it cannot be decorated (as abayas often are) and it is styled differently, so the women who wear it are more shapeless. Again, the burqa was only used from the Taliban's takeover onward, though it was based on an earlier outfit worn by certain Afghan women. It's not a longstanding tradition, as many claim.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
I hate being proved wrong. You are right though, on this point. The girls at school had brocaide around the eye mesh and different colours, mostly blue.
I'm still thinking people will have issue with it though, as it still covers the face.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Covering up the mouth is a disguise?
Damn I never thought my beard was a security threat.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Beards are different. You can see a mouth through a beard, and it's a natural phenonmenon.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
So hiding eyes is fine, ears and hair are fine, but nose and mouth arn't?
What about snoods (remember them?) or big neck scarves? The Chavs around me zip up the collar on their tracksuits to just under their noses... can't see their mouths.
There is a massive market for fake tan in the UK. Should we ban that? That attempts to disguise the colour of skin. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that.
What if I wear a hat, scarf and sunglasses and wear fake tan? Should they throw me out of a bank?
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
If you're covering yourself in a way that reasonably hides your identity, then yes, they should throw you out of any place that you'd reasonably expect to be hit with some sort of illegal activity, or at least told to remove the offending garment.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
That is the thing about heavily socialized democracies such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries. The creation of crimes that only effect the person committing them, in the name of social stability or whatever bullshit that is brought up.
Twobitz1 2 years ago
C666 was just sub whoring PC's shit.
Aspartame69 2 years ago
If the burka was good enough for MJ then it should be good enough for anyone.
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
Isn't it nice how you can speak reasonably to him but not someone you were once friends with? Got anything to do with being a FUCKING SUBWHORE ben?
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Boundless, could you tell me why you blocked me? I enjoy your channel and was perplexed to find myself unsubbed and unable to comment.
Was it something I said?
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
Dude, I have no idea. I will ensure I unblock you now, so sorry for the mistake.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Thanks. I'll resub.
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
You'll be number 500!
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Can you remember a video you managed to comment on? I have to find a comment by you to unblock you
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Wow, Boundless, you really do lack analytical skills. Your logic is completely backwards. Coughlan has way more subs than you. You're small potatoes. If Ben was a "fucking subwhore", as you put it, then he would have responded to Coughlan in a more agressive manner in order to start drama and attract more attention. Ben responded to you the way he did because he is DISSAPOINTED in you. The fact that you're an old friend adds to that DISSAPOINTMENT. Claiming it's about subs, makes you look dumb.
kingston326 2 years ago
I find it perfectly logical to deduce that one doesn't risk one's channel by attacking someone with over 400 times their own subcribers, but hey, you're just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Good ol' free speech.
The fact that we used to be friends also shows that I may in fact know his mentality better than you. but what the hey. =)
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Your videos are full of comments from Ben, which indicate that he really cared for you in the past. Like I said, he responded to you the way he did because he was DISSAPOINTED in you, someone he probably still cares about. Coughlan may have more subs, but a lot of Coughlan's subs AGREE WITH CONDELL, thus Ben getting angry at Coughlan wouldn't hurt him. The Condell fans who also sub to Coughlan would side with Ben and make up for anything he lost and then some. : - )
kingston326 2 years ago
kingston got it 100% right, here.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
dude saudia arabia is full of burkha..y did u say that it orginated from afghanistan..ur arguments are on desire not on facts..go to eqypt n every country u will find burqas there..its not related to taliban..yes u have the right to ban burkha only if u stop imposing the freedom of blah blah on everybody by what in the name u occupy our lands and rape our women even ur own army women..lol...u can make ppl walk naked on ur streets but do not bring ur shit system on our lands.
imharis87 2 years ago
Saudi Arabia has other outfits that look similar to the bura, but are not. They generally wear a long dress plus a niqab, which is slightly more revealing than the burqa and has another style.
There are a total of 2 muslim countries where western forces occupy.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
but the dress is since the starting of islam y is it now that the world is talkin about freedom of this and that it has to be banned..islam has been in world for more then 1400 years why is it after 9/11 most of the action is against muslims? the government brainswashed the common ppl thru media n left us no corner except to fight to survive..but no problem there are dark ages for every nation n its our time n no body can help us only the God who believe in.
imharis87 2 years ago
great video. i think we would help the moslem women in the west by not allowing them to wear that dark age clothing.
these hijab, niqab or bhurka are clothing that surgests that their minds are in the dark age mentally.
ludersatan 2 years ago
n yeah ur biknis and naked beaches portrays mordern age....its about modesty...ur dress represents who ur. if a women do not want to show her face to some desperate guys then its her will. n if u think they have dark age mentaliity thn try to sit with them n talk may be u will get a light.
imharis87 2 years ago
Oh please. Muslim men are basically taught that when a woman dresses provocatively, and gets raped it's her fault. (search google for rape in Saudi Arabia, and you'll find story after story of the VICTIM being punished)
This give Muslim men a license to rape women, and essentially forces women to cover themselves.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
Some Muslim women may say they have no problem wearing such clothing, but it's because they have likewise bought into the belief that they have an obligation to cover themselves because men are unable to control their penises.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
If Muslim men really can't control their penises, get castrated. That will solve 3 problems at once.
Muslim men raping women, women having to wear the burqa, and the spread of you're barbaric religion.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*your
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
lol ur soldiers who are fighthing in afghansitan u should see their condition as they cant live without a pussy n alchol there even the contractors raped their own soldier women and killed her..women are not forced to wear burqa atleast in Western civilization n here if ur tht despo u have red lights n blondes in ur country are ready to go into bed at the cost of one beer..its their own choicei do not know where u get ur info from maybe some envy christain or atheist site. be rationalntemotional
imharis87 2 years ago
"its about modesty."
Which would suggest that they don't want attention. Wearing that in a place where it's not common is attention seeking, which is antithetical of modesty
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
we can keep on arguing on tht....well there are differences in what u call modesty because of our background and upbringing. it is ur country it is ur right to do what ever u want to do i hope these muslims return to their lands n get the corruptness out of here so we can live peacefully with our own values and culture without begging it at the door of people who do not understand it.
imharis87 2 years ago
"well there are differences in what u call modesty because of our background and upbringing."
The very definition of the word "modesty" includes avoiding attention. That's what I'm saying. What constitutes modest dress is up for debate, generally, but anything that brings attention to someone is NOT modest
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
I think that particular nuance of the word is literally lost in translation. Some concepts translate from one culture to another exactly and others do not. I think that the 'modesty' that theburqa serves is entirely about hiding the female body from view, not hiding the woman herself.
As example, the Victorians used to put socks on the ankles of piano legs in order to avoid embarrassing Americans, who they considered considerably more prudish. Modesty that stands out... it's an amazing fail.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
good vid, i am a big fan from across the river, thanks to all of canada for my favorite sport hockey,
i think banning anything in the name of (put your cause here) is nuts. on to part 2
freethinker3161 2 years ago
I said as much on BoundlessEyes' video.
I still believe Condell was wrong to say the burka (and/or the other outfit who's name I can neither spell nor pronounce) should be banned (though I have reason to suspect Pat's performance was mostly tongue-in-cheek).
No item of clothing should ever be banned... period.
There's a world of difference in legislating safety, and legislating clothing (not that I believe either should be written in law).
J6a6so6n 2 years ago
"though I have reason to suspect Pat's performance was mostly tongue-in-cheek"
He said what he meant pretty clearly, and he seems to agree with me.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
"He said what he meant pretty clearly, and he seems to agree with me. "
I could see it argued either way; he does seem to favour complete removal of the garment from Britain altogether, but his words, directly, say "public transport, and in public buildings, and anywhere else that other people are expected to show their face as a matter of course".
The question is, how far do you take that?
I'm expected, as a matter of course, to show my face as I walk down a public sidewalk. (For example)
J6a6so6n 2 years ago
In regards to your 'logical fallacy' argument:
Everyone has their own 'pet peeves' when it comes to language/clothing/music/etc, if you set the precedent, more will follow.
It becomes, in effect, a 'self-fulfilling' prophecy.
From a personal taste standpoint, I would LOVE to see the utter annihilation of 'Rap' from the face of the planet.
Would I stand for such being written into law? FUCK NO.
That will only lead to some disgruntled prick deciding to ban my favourite music.
J6a6so6n 2 years ago
It might be a self fulfilling prophecy, if the same logic can be used to ban other things. Can one reasonably say "it conceals your identity" about turbans or beards?
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
"Can one reasonably say "it conceals your identity" about turbans or beards?"
Turbans? Not really.
Beards? Sure.
It's unusual... but I have seen beards that utterly obfuscate the person.
Would I recognize the person as long as they had the beard? Definitely.
Would I recognize the person if they cut the beard off?
No.
J6a6so6n 2 years ago
Beards have the extenuating circumstance of being natural. They do grow on people's faces. So that's another fallacy as well, the non sequitur.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Regarding the Burqa; Pat Condel was advocating outright banning the garment, not implementing some sort of reasonable law regarding votingbooths, banks and the like. The two issues are seperate. I agree fully with you that in places like that any disguise is not a good idea, and seperate laws can be made for these areas. But to ban the garment completely will just serve to further segregate these people from the society they live in. They will stay inside, or they will be kept inside.
1stCainite 2 years ago
You must not have paid attention. He clearly said that the burqa should be banned in placed where disguises are not accepted.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Hmm. I was certain he was being general. i will view it again.
1stCainite 2 years ago
watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48 @ 1:38
"[...]personally I would ban [the Burqa] on public transports and in public buildings and anywhere else other people are expected to show their faces as a matter of course. I also think that shops and banks should be allowed to refuse entry to anybody in disguise. [...]"
To me it is pretty clear that he advocated a full ban on the burqa. especially since he later, admittedly in jest, says that only muslim men should be forced to wear the burqa.
1stCainite 2 years ago
See, that's the part that makes me think he only wants it banned in particular circumstances. He specified where he wants it banned. If he didn't specify, I'd think it reasonable to say he advocated a full ban.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
It is the "anywhere people are expected to show their face as a metter of course" that is a bit too general for my tastes. that could mean anything from walking down the street, or driving your car, to the specific examples he gave. the fact that he says "also" to me means he has something wider in mind. But i get the sense that, at least, you and I are in agreement then.
1stCainite 2 years ago
I think it's fair to say he wants the burqa banned in any kind of public area. Considering it is only worn when going out in public, this suggests an all out ban in all but name.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
I have to agree, but certain types of dress are not appropriate for some circumstances, and in some circumstances, such as when it's a risk to safety, this should be enforced by law.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago