- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,988
- Reaction score
- 6,593
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh please. Love it or leave it, huh? Great reasoning for excusing violating basic rights to wear what one wants.It is akin to making them walk around in the raw. That's the point. By making it law and having an open door policy they are quite free to migrate somewhere else.
And if I don't, I'm arrested. As should any person who refuses to remove anything that prohibits identification. So where is the issue?I police officer can ask you to remove your glasses, hat scarf etc and you will.
It's a non-issue for the burka too.If the attitude to those particular items changed then a law may be required to ban them too. But thus far it is not an issue hence no law.
I don't care one iota about any religious beliefs since they are not the issue.And BTW, it is the same law for everyone. Non muslim women can't wear a burka either.
Where did you get the idea that you can wear whatever you want?Oh please. Love it or leave it, huh? Great reasoning for excusing violating basic rights to wear what one wants.
If a cop stops you at the side of the road and instructs you to get naked?And if I don't, I'm arrested. As should any person who refuses to remove anything that prohibits identification. So where is the issue?
It's a non-issue for the burka too.
I don't care one iota about any religious beliefs since they are not the issue.
The issue is that if I want to wear a ****ing veil, then I should be able to wear a ****ing veil. It's absolutely ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric. It's especially ridiculous to ban a piece of fabric on the ludicrous grounds that it "makes it difficult to identify people" when countless other things do the same damn thing. It's also ridiculous to use such an argument when it's already required for me to remove coverings if I am questioned by the police.
It was, and is, a non-issue and all this law does is trample on the rights of anyone who wishes to wear a veil.
Why can't I? That's the whole ****ing point.Where did you get the idea that you can wear whatever you want?
No, if he stops me and asks me to identify myself.If a cop stops you at the side of the road and instructs you to get naked?
It's not "back to". That's what it's always been about.Again it's back to choice.
No. Do you arrest everyone for wearing sunglasses, ball caps, and trench coats. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.So, do you arrest everyone for wearing a burka,
If they refuse to remove it when asked by an officer, of course.or do you arrest everyone for refusing to removing it?
No, what the law does is remove a person's freedom to wear a piece of fabric. It does nothing more than that. It addresses nothing. It helps nothing. It prevents nothing "bad". ALL it does is remove a freedom from an individual for no good reason whatsoever.Either way the burka is illegal. What this law does it cut out the "religious discrimination" crap that the police may be faced with as they are enforcing the law, not persecuting the woman.
Ditto if she refuses to remove it when asked to by an officer. So why the need for the law again?And if she doesn't like it, she is free to bugger off somewhere else.
Try going out wearing a baseball cap and nothing else. - Apart from many an admiring stare, you'll also get arrested.Why can't I? That's the whole ****ing point.
To those who would willingly choose to wear this article, it is the same thing.No, if he stops me and asks me to identify myself.
Because our cultural mores do not mandate that we keep these on in public. Its no hassle to do so. That is not the same for a woman who would willingly wear a burka.No. Do you arrest everyone for wearing sunglasses, ball caps, and trench coats. Of course not. It would be ridiculous.
Which again results in the exact same thing. Willingly wear a burka, get arrested.If they refuse to remove it when asked by an officer, of course.
What this law does is ensure that the police can identify the person they are speaking to, it ensures that things like CCTV remain a valid tool in crime detection etc.No, what the law does is remove a person's freedom to wear a piece of fabric. It does nothing more than that. It addresses nothing. It helps nothing. It prevents nothing "bad". ALL it does is remove a freedom from an individual for no good reason whatsoever.
Because the law provides them with a tool to ensure the identity of the person they are talking to or watching or recording. You walk around concealed, you get arrested.Ditto if she refuses to remove it when asked to by an officer. So why the need for the law again?
That's not choosing TO wear something. That's choosing NOT to. That's not what I said. I said I should be able to wear what I want.Try going out wearing a baseball cap and nothing else. - Apart from many an admiring stare, you'll also get arrested.
So?To those who would willingly choose to wear this article, it is the same thing.
Yes, it is the same.Because our cultural mores do not mandate that we keep these on in public. Its no hassle to do so. That is not the same for a woman who would willingly wear a burka.
No, it does not result in the same thing. With out the ridiculous, fascist law, a woman could wear a burka and not be bothered. She would only be arrested if she was asked by an officer to show her face for purposes of identification and then REFUSED. Same as if I refused to remove my hat and sunglasses. That's not anything all like being arrested for wearing a hat and sunglasses.Which again results in the exact same thing. Willingly wear a burka, get arrested.
It ensures nothing of the sort. I can still obscure my face quite easily. Hat, sunglasses, high collar. End of story.What this law does is ensure that the police can identify the person they are speaking to, it ensures that things like CCTV remain a valid tool in crime detection etc.
Because the law provides them with a tool to ensure the identity of the person they are talking to or watching or recording. You walk around concealed, you get arrested.
End of.
Righty-ho and away we go.
Trumped-up charges of 'incitement to wacial hatwed' were made after Ofcom received just 350 complaints. I can guess who from.
Police accuse Channel 4 of distorting film on radical Muslim preachers | Mail Online
Apparently the 'Muslim Community' was heaving with rage at the exposure: Islamist radicals: Complain early, complain often… – Telegraph Blogs
Thats not going to work at a traffic stop. Secondly, it is seen as being akin to a strip search, as such it can't be performed at the side of the road.
A pat down does not confirm identity.
-- Interesting point. It's ill advised to wear a balaklava (ski-mask)in public in NI.
Same reason.
And it can get you arrested in the south.
Four years for man convicted of IRA membership | BreakingNews.ie
We do know that the investigating officer was a Muslim, the Muslim Community was in uproar and that plenty complained. Data's not kept on who complains but but it's a fair bet that all the chain links are clear to be seen when not obscured by the sand --
--
The scandal --snip-- motivated police investigation determined to hammer Channel 4 for exposing the truth on whatever pretext.
Furthermore, I do not want to make you believe that Belgium is a totally tolerant society, as we also have racist parties (such as the Vlaams Belang, even if they can't be openly racist anymore).
But I would like to highlight the fact that Belgium in general is not "islamophobic" or "anti-muslim": we are probably the only European country that funds imams, and we are the first European country to allow a veiled deputee to enter a parliament.
Why would a political party that puts a veiled woman on its electoral list, choose to ban the burqa for islamophobic reasons?
What's insane about wearing a veil?
As long as it's consenting adults who are able to enter into contracts, there's no issue.
It doesn't. Which is why it's an example of another ridiculous, fascist law designed to suppress women's sexuality.
When banks become public spaces then you may have an argument. Right now, most banks are private organisations and can have whatever policies they wish - as long as others aren't harmed.
Same questionDont misdirect this. We were talking about Burka and Niqab.
No, they cannot legally. If we change our age of consent laws, then sure. But then they'd have to be allowed to drive, work a job, live on their own, join the military, vote, etc, etc.A child can also consent.
I have no issue with that, no. Why would I?So, you also support orgies in public, sex in public places
That has to do sanitation which would harm others., urination inside and taking a sh** on the street then?
She should not be able to wear that thing inside.. Are people allowed to wear hats inside the same buildings?
Same question
No, they cannot legally. If we change our age of consent laws, then sure. But then they'd have to be allowed to drive, work a job, live on their own, join the military, vote, etc, etc.
I have no issue with that, no. Why would I?
That has to do sanitation which would harm others.
Ok, outside the bank then... :mrgreen:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?