LOL, you really do have a problem with simple concepts don't you?

Submitted by Peter Hall (Australia), Apr 16, 2013 at 21:18

Please Amin, think before you write.

"A private institution has leeway to enforce its own rules. This has NOTHING to do with government policy "

Clearly I was using this as an example of how dress standards vary within a modern Western Society. Do you feel discriminated against if you are told you must not wear work boots in a private clubs dining room? You probably would, but normal people understand that in certain places there are norms that the greater public expect people to comply with.

Then you come up with this gem

" "There are laws in many western countiies that prohibit such symbols as the nazi swatika."

Actually - I don't any . . .

For one thing - if one wears such Swastika within confines of his own home or general public space - I doubt any Western government will stop this. As all have "racist" elements that do just that.

The Swastika is also a symbol of Hinduism. In that capacity - again - I doubt any Western government will ban it."

Try and concentrate, I said the "Nazi Swastika" not the hindu symbol. They are demonstrably different. Actually your ignorance to the law does not mean certain things are not true. There are specific laws in German that prohibit displaying the "Nazi Swastika"

Buy you comments I can see you do not understand how laws work, as a law has specific boundaries in a Western Society. Of course you can wear Police Like uniforms where there is no intention to decieve. However, by way of am exqample, it is an offense in New Soth Wales Australia to any person to have in their possession a New Soth Wales Police Uniform, unless they are members of the NSW Police force and the Uniform has been issued to them.

Again I was using this as an example where laws are enacted in relation to clothing. I understand this must be confusing for you but i am trying to educate you.

""Therefore, it is the right of a society to enact laws to protect the public, and the debate really how offensive, and how much does the burka contribute to crime verses the rights of a woman to wear it in public."

Stats?

Cars facilitate in crime . . .

Guns . . .

Knives . . . .

An idiotic argument. . .""

I think it is pretty clear your argument is idiotic, as there are Laws about how you drive, there are laws as to how you use knives and there are laws about guns, they all do kill and they all have laws. On NSW it is against the law to drive drunk, There are laws prohibiting the carrying of knives with very specific exceptions, and there are laws limiting gun ownership and usage.

What is your argument again?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".