We must also consider, not only the alien values of the interloper, but also our own brave and stalwart ones of which we are rightly so very proud. We are pluralists who value liberty above all things.

If the values of the aliens who enter this system threaten our liberties, then to that extent they must be curtailed. Wearing a veil for any reason (marriage, membership of a monastic order, belonging to a particular brand of Islam) does not threaten mine so far as I am aware. Therefore we must value the liberty of the believer to wear their religious costume of choice just as much as any other liberty we are committed to protecting.

Being pluralists means we accept that there are multiple, mutually exclusive ways to lead a full and rewarding life, never inflicting my choice upon you or vice versa. Everyone can choose to be a Muslim, Christian, atheist, Jedi, or none of the above. You cannot choose to be all of the above. It is not my place to tell you which to be, and you would be against my seizing the power to change that (because I would make you all become Zoroastrians for giggles).

OH NOES!

It's strange, not normal and it scares me. Let's ban it.

Very adult behaviour

These two concepts are mutually exclusive. You simply can not have both.

Either you inflict your laws on others and curtail their liberties, or you accept that their values are different and allow them to practice their beliefs even when they threaten our liberties.

Remember, not all aliens are "pluralist".

Pluralism and liberty are not mutually exclusive. Any apparent tension exists entirely within the concept of liberty (if I am free not to be beaten up, then you are not free to beat people up). This is usual.

If I show toleration for your choice of how to live your life, I can expect to to be shown equal toleration in return. If you are intolerant and prevent me from making my choices, then defending my right to make my choices is not an act of oppression against you, I am simply curtailing your encroachment beyond the area in which you are rightly free to act (your choices) into an area in which you are not free and should not be (mine).

Pluralism is not a weakness, it does not mean I don't get to oppress you, but you get to oppress me.

There's the flaw: "an area in which you are not free". That is a restriction you impose upon them. Just because you think it's OK does not mean they will. You are thinking within your own mind, not theirs. You are imposing your culture onto them. You are rejecting their culture.

People in sects are allowed to give all their money to the sect and die for them, doesn't mean we should let them. It's the same principle.
The burka keeps these women from interacting with the rest of the population and as the husband said in the interview it's best on his selfish need to hide his wife from the view of other men.
Trying to protect the burka for "freedom of expression" is nonsense. In the middle ages they used to burn witches, they still do it in some aprts of africa. doesn't mean that if someone did in europe now, we would say "it's ok it's their right"...

Wear what you like in public, in public buildings make yourself identifiable.

It works in Turkey, veils, scarves, whatever, have to be removed in Government buildings including libraries and Universities.

There's a famous story relating to the now largely extinct (thank god) Hindu practice of, when a person of wealth and/or influence died, throwing the wife of the deceased onto the funeral pyre whether she was also already dead or not. When this practice still went on and India was under the rule of the British Empire, there was an exchange between the governor and a local dignitary where the practice was explained to the governor and the dignitary suggested that as it was his belief, the governor should not interfere.

the Governor's response was long the lines of

"Well,if it is your belief to do this, you should follow that belief. However, It is my belief that I should shoot people who do things like that and I will follow my belief too".

Jon

Forcing somebody to become more free by doing what you want them to do instead of what they want to do is clearly contradictory.

Your witch analogy is not pertinent. If a woman chooses to wear a veil of her own accord, she is not in a similar position to a murder victim.

If somebody wants to give all their money to a sect and die for it, who are you to stop them? Your only right in that regard comes from an assumption that the person must always be a lunatic to make that choice, perhaps this is correct. If so, then it invalidates your argument unless you can also demonstrate that only a lunatic would wear an item of clothing that you disapprove of. Otherwise you must come to the conclusion that somebody could rationally reach a decision to give away their possessions and die, but that you are in charge of their life and you get to say what they can and cannot do. Perhaps in that extreme scenario, you would still be correct. But I wonder if somebody's decision to wear hat on their face is really quite so important? At the best, you have wildly dramatised your argument to the point where it it falls apart...

... but at worst you are presuming that because you have an opinion on how somebody else should live, and in your opinion they are making bad choices, so they would be more free if they are forced to follow your advice than if they pursue their own life plan. For a full discussion of this argument, how it is arrived at, and what its consequences are, you should read Isiah Berlin's essay Two Concepts of Liberty which is available online here: (PDF warmning
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ ... ncepts.pdf
It's philosophy, but not the impenetrable kind. If you prefer the brief synopsis, Berlin describes the result as a "monstrous impersonation" of liberty.

Firstly; forcing somebody to become more free by doing what you want them to do instead of what they want to do is clearly contradictory.
Secondly; your analogies are not pertinent. If a woman chooses to wear a veil of her own accord, she is not in a similar position to a murder victim, so I see no reason why you bring witch burning into this.[/quote]
If she wears something to isolate her from the rest of the world, and to content her husband because then no "other men" will see her, she's not free, she's brainwashed. And yes i believe the Burqa is like being a murder victime, you are denied your place in society and interaction with the rest of the world. I have no issue whatsoever with hijabs, but the burqa is a barbaric tradition.

Oh dear, it seems that you are of the opinion that people who make life choices you don't like would be more free if they were forced to do what you want.

I'm the opinion of the people who know that women's rights in Europe aren't even 100 years old and that allowing things like this to continue opens the door for going back to inequal laws. The burqa is not wanted by moderate muslims as it has nothing to do with their beliefs and is just an instrument used by manipulative men, and to protect the few women who are forced to wear it, it's better to get rid of this barbaric tradition once and for all.

At some level, we must all mean the same thing when we use a word like liberty, or else no communication on the subject is possible. As I have already hitched my cart to Isiah Berlin's horse, I may as well carry on.

In the same essay I linked to above, he refers to (the negative expression of) your liberty as the area of private concern over which you are entitled to unbridled dominion. I have a head, and I own a hat, both items are property of me and me alone, so if I wear the hat, I am exercising a very small part of my liberty

If I were to take your hat and wear that instead, then your liberty towards your property would be infringed. If you refuse to let me wear your hat however, my liberty is not being infringed at all, I do not have any liberty to wear your hat because your possessions are not part of the legitimate sphere of my private concern, they are part of yours.

Liberty within a social context (which necessarily requires cooperation and therefore some form of rules) is not the same as a license to do whatever you please under any and all circumstances.

What if i was told all my life that the best thing for me was to wear a very heavy lead hat. It'd be my right, but if it was to be forbidden , it'd be for my own good.

among other things, women's rights should include the right to control of their own bodies, their own religious beliefs, and their own property. these are rights you wish to take away from women.

A handful of women living in a free and cosmopolitan country wearing a veil is not a threat to anyone, it is not the start of a new era of female bondage. You do nothing for women's rights by playing into the hands of men who think that women are inherently hysterical and irrational.

I'm not defending the right of a man to force a woman to wear a veil, I am defending the freedom that allows a woman to choose to wear one. If you can prove that all the women who wear these items of clothing are being coerced, then I will support a ban, but you can't because it is not the case.