On 24 Mar, 21:47, Alasdair wrote:
> Should the government ban the use of burkhas and other garments etc
> which cover the face and so avoid recognition? =A0Surely it would make
> sense to outlaw the wearing of any garment or helmet which makes the
> wearer unrecognisable. =A0
>
> --
> Alasdair.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
It comes down to a question of whether we should ban actions which
sane beings know are morally wrong but which survivalist-mode
religions say are right because they generate soldiers to do our
killing for us.
If you were to look underneath those burkhas, you would find the
wearer's vulva has been horribly and cruelly mutiliated. Shouldn't we
start there, as it is the greater evil.
The same applies to the males who control the beings under the
burkhas. Did you ever hear a baby crying incessantly after he was
'circumcised,' his mother deaf to her babies pain?
Start with what lies under the burkhas and under the male veneer.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070328/capt.sge.jue87.280307150117.pho=
to00.photo.default-337x512.jpg
http://www.weirdspot.com/alexandro/face_pain.jpg
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=3Dhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/im=
ages/36881000/jpg/_36881293_female_circumcision300.jpg&imgrefurl=3Dhttp://ne=
ws.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916917.stm&h=3D180&w=3D300&sz=3D14&hl=3Den&start=
=3D24&sig2=3DNj8hQwbdAkU2MWwZ6RpM9Q&tbnid=3DhyPTzDOBe_QdmM:&tbnh=3D70&tbnw=
=3D116&ei=3DR3XoR__TApOWxAGFuNQg&prev=3D/images%3Fq%3Dfemale%2Bcircumcision%=
26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN |