2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Re. your column on "The Case For Banning Burqas and Niqas

Reader comment on item: The Case for Banning Burqas and Niqabs

Submitted by Bryan Taplits (United States), Apr 23, 2022 at 18:44

Dr. Pipes, you didn't mention it but police use guns-and so do lawbreakers. This vividly demonstrates that "good" things can also be used for "evil" purposes-and "evil" things can be used for "good" purposes.. Fire is another examples.
However, I realize that-because of space limitation-you couldn't mention everything that can be used for "good" which can also be used for "evil." Let me point out that how an object is used makes a big difference in what its impact is for "good" or "evil."
It's obvious to me-and commonsensical, as you write-that something that is now used for "evil" (as the garb religious Muslim women wear) should be regulated-SINCE IT HAS MANY TIMES (as you point out) BEEN USED TO PERPETRATE VIOLENT CRIMES. This is a lot different than saying "the garb's purpose is evil." It has, demonstrably in the past, though, been used for violent law-breaking purposes. A civilized society should recognize this-and this fact; and the fact that Cohen-Almagor doesn't seem to, seems to me to display a lack by him of respect for and obeisance to civilized society.
I am Jewish. If my skullcap were large enough to hide a gun (and this means of committing a violent crime had been used many times before), I would understand why it must be banned (on the streets-not necessarily in my house of worship).
As you put it in your last sentence, the banning of such accessories of criminal behavior is common sense. Not to ban such things is anti-civilized behavior and suicidal!
The main point of your comment as I understand it-is to regulate (or ban) depending on how something is being used-not on how something may be used. Things can be used for good or bad; "good" or "bad" things should be judged on that basis.

Submitting....

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".

Daniel Pipes replies:

Agreed.

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Re. your column on "The Case For Banning Burqas and Niqas by Bryan Taplits

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)