Should wearing a burqa be banned in the UK?

Dickens, no I'm not sure, as you say it could be a moderator, I suppose, like many on here I'm feeling sad and sorry for a well loved poster, at such a difficult time too. FGT has often expressed how the support on GN has geed her up when her spirits have been very low. I know others on this forum have lost their soul mates and I read those bereaved threads with a heavy heart knowing I could be in that position one day. FGT expresses with feeling the very best of what is clearly a strong and solid marriage, with humour, tongue in cheek and at times self deprecating. Her palpable anxiety kind of springs off the page for the worries she has about "himself" So yes maybe I'm reacting in a "oh no! has she been banned for good" knee jerk manner" when I banged off my inner thoughts.

I really hope she comes back, she is such a character, never beige imo. I know at times her politics are too out there for some, but I like her honesty, I might not always agree, why would any of us agree about everything and anything.

Back to the burka, a poster pointed out that we don't really want to import this sort of restriction on women, but that did make me think,

"but for the women coming, it may give them a chance to leave that sort of thinking behind by coming here"

I imagine that when a few reports have come in, before considering banning/suspension, GN then do make a search to check on a wider basis.

I raised the issue of the issues around "taking into consideration" on the last page. We don't know all posters personal difficulties and circumstances, so how can GNHQ's make all decisions relative to perusal circumstances.

Yes. The women cover up so men can't see them. It's, in my eyes. oppressive and when I see a women in a Burqa, I feel uncomfortable and sad. They can't smile at you, as I do them.

Whitewavemark2

*I'm with those who believe we should allow offensive posts to stand (and I'm not suggesting FGT's was) and let GN moderate as they see fit*

Which is exactly what happened as far as we know.

I don't think GNHQ keep an eye on every thread unless something is reported as against guidelines.

I might be wrong but they are very busy!

It could be anyone who reported FGT, of course, because her politics are not to everyone's taste and she has received a lot of fairly robust comments in return, which she has always dealt with politely and with grace.

It's a pity if this is a ban and not, perhaps, a suspension.
It seems sad when GN can be such a support during difficult times.

I'm with those who believe we should allow offensive posts to stand (and I'm not suggesting FGT's was) and let GN moderate as they see fit

Which is exactly what happened as far as we know.

TerriBull

I missed the offending post, a thread such as this is going to obviously attract conflicting opinions, I'm conflicted myself as to 'banning', I can appreciate the one argument against that 'personal freedom' as opposed to a multitude of arguments for the ban. That aside I wish the person who has caused FGT to identify themselves, it's the least they could do, "you have the right to be offended" but at least give your reasons otherwise sneaky, covert and cowardly to do this to a well liked poster who is having a lot of personal anxiety. It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

I missed the offending post...

So did I.

But - are you (we) sure that it is necessarily someone on this thread that reported her post?

People read or lurk on threads without necessarily contributing.

It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

Quite.

I'm with those who believe we should allow offensive posts to stand (and I'm not suggesting FGT's was) and let GN moderate as they see fit.

I've only ever reported one offensive prankster - along with most others who were commenting at the time, for being vulgarly and personally abusive of one of our members.

I certainly have no intention of ever reporting anyone who might 'colourfully' hold an opinion I disagreed with! And, if I ever do, I will have the grace to inform them, personally. I think many grans on here feel the same.

OldFrill

How would any ban be enforced? Public removal? Arrest if not compliant? Prosecution? I can't see that's feasible or a worthwhile use of resources.

You need to see how it is enforced in countries who have done so.

How would any ban be enforced? Public removal? Arrest if not compliant? Prosecution? I can't see that's feasible or a worthwhile use of resources.

Smileless2012

GN only looks at posts that have been reported Whitewavemark.

Do we know that for sure?

Not that it makes any difference.

GN only looks at posts that have been reported Whitewavemark.

It is very wrong to ask the person who reported the post to identify themselves

Agree.

It’s always HQ’s decision whether to delete the post or not, I’m sure half of all posts reported aren’t deleted.

And as for the person/ people admitting they reported the post , what happens then? Are they reported for reporting?

There is a delicate matter as regards banning and personal circumstances.

The fact that many of us have various difficulties in our lives that may or may not result in perhaps blurting something out in news and politics we might not have otherwise done.

I am talking in general here, but it could happen to many of us including me!

So on the one hand we might say, "Oh, that should be taken into consideration" but on the other is "well, not all people experiencing great difficulties reveal it in GN."

It is very wrong to ask the person who reported the post to identify themselves.

First we have no idea whether anyone did indeed report the post - it simply could have been picked up by GN.

Secondly the decision to delete a post is always the sole decision of GN - so whoever reports has nothing to do that decision.

Lastly for someone to be banned i would assume (I might be wrong here) that GN has had cause to warn that person more than once. If someone is banned after just one post then it was bad judgement on GNs behalf, or it must have been so bad that it was astoundingly so!!

TerriBull

I missed the offending post, a thread such as this is going to obviously attract conflicting opinions, I'm conflicted myself as to 'banning', I can appreciate the one argument against that 'personal freedom' as opposed to a multitude of arguments for the ban. That aside I wish the person who has caused FGT to identify themselves, it's the least they could do, "you have the right to be offended" but at least give your reasons otherwise sneaky, covert and cowardly to do this to a well liked poster who is having a lot of personal anxiety. It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

I'm wondering if FGT said anything more controversial than politicians have said, including our ex-Prime Minister. These remarks have been published in the wider media too.

Not particularly bothered either way regarding banning the burqa. I just hope the women are wearing them out of choice and not being forced to.

I'm appreciating the points WWM is making actually, it does give some insight into why the Mods do delete a post.

I find I appreciate their relatively light touch on moderation, (having experienced another board that is excessively heavy) it makes me feel sort of safe that there are boundaries becuase it really isn't "nice" out there in the world of SMedia.

Letting posts stand that we as individuals find offensive but we can read for ourselves, and chose to comment or not.

But if it crosses the lines WWM outline that is what GN needs to follow.

I don't think anyone should cover their face for a variety of reasons including security. Motorbike riders are required to remove their helmets for the same reason. I've also read on occasion about teachers wearing the veil and I don't think that's right. There is no religious requirement to wear the veil, none whatsoever. It is purely cultural. If a cultural practice leads to security issues, or someone not fulfilling their job to its fullest potential, then it cannot be justified. To clarify, I am not talking about head coverings or covering up one's body, just the face..

I missed the offending post, a thread such as this is going to obviously attract conflicting opinions, I'm conflicted myself as to 'banning', I can appreciate the one argument against that 'personal freedom' as opposed to a multitude of arguments for the ban. That aside I wish the person who has caused FGT to identify themselves, it's the least they could do, "you have the right to be offended" but at least give your reasons otherwise sneaky, covert and cowardly to do this to a well liked poster who is having a lot of personal anxiety. It's quite apparent FGT often wears her heart on her sleeve, and I imagine at a time of heightened emotions this ban will cause her another layer of unnecessary upset.

yanda

You make a good point there wooden spoon, I agree with you. I live in a town which has welcomed Muslims since the 1960s, you hardly ever saw women wearing the burka. I would say I saw a significant increase when our brave soldiers went to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. To me that was an underneath way of supporting the Taliban and antagonising the natives. A previous poster said the wearing of the burka had declined but I have to disagree in my opinion it's increased.

I spent a part of my youth in north London. There were a fairly large number of Muslims, together with Irish Catholics and native Brits, living in my (long) road.

Apart from one unpleasant episode - which didn't involve either of the above - I don't remember any animosity between cultures or creeds.

When there were birthday parties / anniversaries etc, neighbours were invited and attended.

... we just did 'multi-culturalism' without any instructions, so to speak.

But that was then.

I don't think I have seen a post that actually breaks the law on GN.
I've seen many posts by FGT and she can be blunt but breaking the law?
Interpreting hate speech can be difficult too unless it's an obvious slur on another poster about their race for example.
I've been on GN for a long time and I'd be hard pressed to find a libellous post
Perhaps others have seen one?

Tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised if FGT wasn’t reinstated after a short period.

She has such kind and thoughtful posts - just mad moments😄😄.

Dickens

AGAA4

I think reporting someone is a serious issue and the reporter should identify themselves and the reason for the report. A lot of unnecessary upset can be done to someone who has been banned.
I think it's better to let a post I believe to be offensive to stand and let others see it and respond as what is offensive to one may not be to someone else.
As we are all adults I don't think we need to be sheltered from whatever is posted on here. We can deal with it ourselves.

I missed the 'offending' post - but I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Except that GN must comply with the law - so it isn’t quite so simply as you are implying.

AGAA4

I think reporting someone is a serious issue and the reporter should identify themselves and the reason for the report. A lot of unnecessary upset can be done to someone who has been banned.
I think it's better to let a post I believe to be offensive to stand and let others see it and respond as what is offensive to one may not be to someone else.
As we are all adults I don't think we need to be sheltered from whatever is posted on here. We can deal with it ourselves.

I missed the 'offending' post - but I wholeheartedly agree with you.