There are simple practical issues to consider, such as the inability to identify people wearing a facial veil, which is obviously necessary for law enforcement and many normal, everyday activities.
People shouldn't go around with their faces covered; it's a security issue. We're not allowed to go around with our license plates covered.
A person has to be identifiable. It's surely not racist.
Just looked back again. If I chose to wear a veil for whatever reason, I'll be damned if I'd let anybody stop me
The FBI is searching for a man who wore a mask of Richard Nixon when he robbed two banks
The robber may be taking a page from the movie "Point Break," in which bank robbers wore masks of Nixon, Ronald Reagan and other former presidents to rob banks in the Los Angeles area.
There are clearly two conflicting issues here. Well simplistically that is.
First there is the religious and historical background of Muslim faith. Second, and in a modern recent historical context, there is the radicalised Muslim terrorist threat.
I confess to not being sure what to think on the issue. On the one hand is it right that women are forced to wear such garments whilst there men are free to wear what they like? But then, there are plenty of Muslim women who have said that they do not feel oppressed by the Burqa and wear from choice as part of their devotion to their faith. Of course the human condition means that we all tend to clump together with like minded people (mostly) and difference is often interpreted as a threat and therefore distrust is fostered of those we don't understand.
Then there are the Muslim scholars I've heard interviewed who have all said that there is nothing in the Koran that insists that women should be veiled. I'm confused and honestly don't know how to view this issue. It's clear that many people regard Muslims as a problem, indeed as dangerous fanatics, but again I'm not sure. I am fortunate to work in a place where there are lots of ethnic groups and I enjoy the company of all of them. In my experience most Muslims by a very large margin, are only interested in what everyone else is. You know, peace, raising a family and paying the bills.
Of course it's not a crime, nor should it ever be, to have private beliefs on any subject. It is however unhelpful in the extreme to perpetrate stereotypical views on groups of people founded mostly on misinformation. It's not so very long ago that Ivan in Moscow was a demon after all!
mattpritt wrote on Jul 18, '10, edited on Jul 18, '10
I think the notion that gets lost sometimes is that freedoms are absolutes, when in fact they most certainly are not. As the old adage goes, one has freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that one can yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater. Many places have already adopted policies where you can't enter if your face is covered, banks for example (or at least most of the ones I know) don't allow their patrons to come in with their faces covered, because as you suggest it is a security issue.
That being said, I am not for busting into the local mosque and having us a good old fashioned "burqa raisin'", because whether we like it or not, it is part of that religion, at least in some sects and citizens should expect a certain amout of privacy and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit.
As a general rule, individual freedoms tend to stop when they endanger or harm others or prohibit others from exercsing their own freedoms.
mattpritt wrote on Jul 18, '10, edited on Jul 18, '10
I don't know if it is equitable, but it is just a limitation that is placed on freedoms. Otherwise I could sit here in my home and call in bomb threats du jour and when they came to arrest me I could simply argue freedom of speech and expect no repercussion, after all I would just be exercising my rights. Likewise if I were a member of the Korowai, I couldn't expect to come to the United States and continue the practice of cannibalism simply because it is part of my belief/religious system, because eating someone would most definitely infringe on their rights. The trick then becomes where do we draw the lines in the sand, the limitations on freedoms so that everyone may enjoy them rather than a Darwinian, only the strong survive style approach to providing them. While applying those limitations is far from an exact science, I would argue it beats the alternative, being an afternoon snack on someone's lunch table.
Sorry for the delay in responding, just driven 210 miles to my place of work for the week.
Anyway, my point is that the problem is way more complicated than any of us imagine. There are no rights or wrongs here, rather a whole lot of greys. It certainly ain't my fault that a bunch of folks in the mid east are poor and had a real crap deal compared to where I come from. On the other hand it could probably be argued that the Mid East got shafted good an properly in the past and mostly by the UK in the early part of the 20th century. Does that make me personally responsible, of course not and a terrorist is a terrorist no matter how you argue about it. Do I have any moral responsibility towards the Mid East situation, well very probably. Especially given how we botched the partition of the region post WWI and the second invasion of Iraq for no fathomable reason I can see.
Of course there are a myriad of other factors, not the least the corrupt governance that exists in that part of the world, and of course the fabulously wealthy few who rule over the huge majority who often live in pretty appalling conditions. The radicalised will stop bombing etc. only when it's in their interest to do so. Killing and demonising them will not stop them, only by improving their lot and respecting them will.
All the rest is just froth and the sooner we get past that the sooner we can get on with the business of getting along.
By the way, I am no supporter of Muslims or any other group come to that. Nor am I a person of faith, rather I'd style myself a pragmatist. It seems to me that we have thousands of years of history to learn from and the one thing that seems to be true from that is that the resolution of conflict always comes back to talk and negotiation.
This to identify after the fact, the person/s who committed a crime. How many known, radical (Muslim) terrorists covered their faces?
Partially and also partially to determine potential witnesses to a crime, or in the specific instance of the bank that I brought up, to better verify the identity of the person making a transaction, less they be given the opportunity to have access to anyone's account. And the policy isn't strictly geared towards Muslims; hoodies, masks, and many times even hats have to be removed before entering.
I was stupid enough to wonder how the identities of women covered from head to foot was handled in Muslim countries. Then it hit me that women have no status in those countries and so its not important to identify them. You may want to note that people involved in terrorism cover their faces so that they cannot be identified by those wanting revenge. Why do Muslim people migrate to Christian countries when countries like Malaysia are looking for labour?
I understand all the reasons you've given; I understood before. I still ask: How many known, radical (Muslim) terrorists covered their faces?
One would assume that if they were known, there would be little reason for them to then cover their faces, so I would counter how many terrorists in the beheading videos don't have their faces covered?
Even in our lax security standards of pre 9/11, anyone trying to board a plane with their faces covered most assuredly would have been stopped. But I was asked how many in the past had covered their faces, and without doing a head count of the entire radicalized Islamic faith, we are left to whatever scraps are available to us, including the decapitation videos in which many of the participants do indeed have their identities hidden. For every one you point out and say look his face isn't covered, I am sure I can point one out and say look his face is. It becomes a neverending argument.
As for the point of this blog, I took it to be the question of whether or not it is a reasonable expectation of people to keep their faces uncovered, and not solely Muslims though they seem to be bearing the brunt of this comment thread, to which I said yes and no, depending on the circumstances. Is it reasonable to be able to identify visually those people getting on a plane, train, subway car, or bus? I would argue probably yes, the paramount issue being public safety over individual freedom. By the same token it would be in my estimation unreasonable to just start busting into churches/mosques, homes or private gatherings and start disrobing people because we don't like what they wear. It's my own personal line in the sand and one that I am relatively comfortable with.
Great post goodstuff – here in Canada, more in Toronto, it has become a serious issue of safety concern. Not only that – the burka represents loss of a democracy, no free will. Here in North America, USA and Canada men and women have given their lives so that we have democracy, equal rights and freedom of thought and speech. The burkas have nothing to do with religion it is government instituted and government controlled. We all want to be kind and give freedom to those who seek it, but being blind is not being kind it’s just being blind.
'd also like to ask Good Stuff for a reference to: "The KKK was a terrorist group, who wore masks to hide their identity. Those masks were banned as a matter of internal security" I have never heard of this?
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled that a New York state law barring public demonstrators from wearing masks is valid under the U.S. Constitution and does not violate Ku Klux Klan members' free speech rights.
"The three-judge panel said the mask was not protected by the free-speech provision because it does not convey a message independently of the robe and hood. "
The Burka does convey a message of a religion. Quite a difference.
If I may defend some of that thread here, "sithan" was a person who hopped on the freedom thread and basically stated a paradox, asking why the US isn't leading an intervention in the Congo, but at the same time posting both here and on his own page that all US intervention is bad. I made the mistake of looking at his page only to see how the US's involvement in WWII was just basically bombing innocent German women and children. It was nutbaggy-ness of the highest order and while I can't speak for others, I know I blocked him and goodstuff suggested others had the freedom to do the same.
adrisanitaium was responding to the words of sithan, not goodstuff. I don't know if sithan does say things just to be angry, but I just found him to be narrowminded and rather stupid, hardly new when it comes to the world wide web, but certainly something that I can do without so I blocked him.
s it reasonable to be able to identify visually those people getting on a plane, train, subway car, or bus? I would argue probably yes, the paramount issue being public safety over individual freedom. By the same token it would be in my estimation unreasonable to just start busting into churches/mosques, homes or private gatherings and start disrobing people because we don't like what they wear. It's my own personal line in the sand and one that I am relatively comfortable with.
I’d love to ask what year you were born? Muslim religion was already a strong religion eons ago and women did not wear a burqa until the 70’s when it then became law by the “government”. Women did not want to wear the burka and were brutally beaten if they did not. Muslim women don’t have freedom of speech or freedom of decisions. We in a democratic world do, but we also have “laws” such as your identity has to be visible when walking into a public establishment, such as banks, airports and so on. Women here in Canada and USA wear the burqa because their head of the family say so. You need to get yourself more informed before you make opinions of wishful thinking.
we also have “laws” such as your identity has to be visible when walking into a public establishment, such as banks, airports and so on.
great links - thanks
A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.
I agree... ban the burka (except in private locations?)... and anything else that masks ID (religious or not)...Plus it's totally unpractical... can you imagine working around machinery? Their visibility is dangerously restricted, cannot see eminate danger, should be banned if driving...etc. Of course since they are not allowed to do anything...safety probably doesn't matter.
Instead... join my religion.... total nudity at all times. I demand my religious freedom...No clothes..and you must pledge me 50% of your paycheck, and call me "Master". If some religions can be absurd, so can mine.
Claiming that it's "part of my religion"... is NO excuse.
Human values trump religious values...and they absolutely should.
Many/most religious have some bizzare aspect to them which make no sense to other people. Religions make some rediculous rules. Example... one "religion" allows poisionous snakes to bite them assuming "the lord will protect them"... (they sometimes die). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_with_Signs_Following Some states have made it illegal to handle snakes (even in private)... deemed to be dangerous (The burka can be dangerous too). ....
Scootch - ??? Why would a suicide bomber bother to hide his idenity? He/she is proud to have killed in the name of their God. Well, sometimes there IS a reason...it's a good way to sneak up amongst your victims you intend to kill, otherwise you would be stopped before you could kill. "The radicalised will stop bombing etc. only when it's in their interest to do so"... and that's when they dominate all other humans.
Instead... join my religion.... total nudity at all times. I demand my religious freedom...No clothes..and you must pledge me 50% of your paycheck, and call me "Master". If some religions can be absurd, so can mine.
ERR .. Master Chicken Dude, I will have ask Fred Phelps and his friends at Westboro Baptist Church to join your new naked religion.
If God meant us to wear clothes... we would have been born with clothes on. Welcome to the "Church of Naked truth" religion (nothing to hide). Now... where's my cash?
I agree... ban the burka (except in private locations?)... and anything else that masks ID (religious or not)...Plus it's totally unpractical... can you imagine working around machinery? Their visibility is dangerously restricted, cannot see eminate danger, should be banned if driving...etc. Of course since they are not allowed to do anything...safety probably doesn't matter.
Instead... join my religion.... total nudity at all times. I demand my religious freedom...No clothes..and you must pledge me 50% of your paycheck, and call me "Master". If some religions can be absurd, so can mine.
Claiming that it's "part of my religion"... is NO excuse.
Human values trump religious values...and they absolutely should.
Many/most religious have some bizzare aspect to them which make no sense to other people. Religions make some rediculous rules. Example... one "religion" allows poisionous snakes to bite them assuming "the lord will protect them"... (they sometimes die). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_with_Signs_Following Some states have made it illegal to handle snakes (even in private)... deemed to be dangerous (The burka can be dangerous too). ....
Scootch - ??? Why would a suicide bomber bother to hide his idenity? He/she is proud to have killed in the name of their God. Well, sometimes there IS a reason...it's a good way to sneak up amongst your victims you intend to kill, otherwise you would be stopped before you could kill. "The radicalised will stop bombing etc. only when it's in their interest to do so"... and that's when they dominate all other humans.
Nope, not going to rise to that one.
I've enjoyed following this debate, mostly, it has for a change been almost completely civil and devoid of name calling, almost. A refreshing change from other similar threads I've seen.
I must also say that the humour was, well almost..... ;-))
Philip Hollobone wants burkas and niqabs banned from being worn in public. A Conservative MP has been warned he could face legal action if he refuses to meet constituents who wear burkas or niqabs, which hide their faces.
Lawyers for pressure group Liberty have written to Philip Hollobone stating the Equality Act obliges him to avoid discrimination.
Which was brought in under the previous administration and pulled together many related acts into one and also introduced parts of the EU legislation. I say again, the current fellow is a minor and I stress minor, right wing politician who seems bent on getting some publicity for himself and his clearly extreme views.
There are issues surrounding the wearing of such 'religeous' garb but mostly in the minds of the loony right wing fringe and their organs like the Daily Mail and the Sun. As I have said before, such nonsense is not helpfull in having a 'grown-up' dialogue and ultimately simply fosters prejudice on all sides.
A Spanx faced robber was arrested in Oklahoma last night for robbing a McDonald's drive-thru on Tuesday morning. The good news is that at least Brit Brit got herself a decent wig. No, of course this isn't Brit Brit. There's no chicken grease stains on the Spanx!
He/she/it is a thief holding up a place at, presumably, gunpoint. Hardly germain to the point that Mr. Hollobone and you are trying to make I think. The insidious drip, drip of anti Muslim propaganda helps no one and only serves to further the cause of the extremists.
In a free and democratic liberal minded country it should not be a problem what anyone wears nor for what reason. Criminals are just that and it matters not what anyone says about them, they simply lawbreakers and deserve an appropriate punishment. Those who choose to wear garb appropriate, to their mind, to their religion is no reason to persecute them.
Let me be clear here, any religion that insists (and I'm still not sure that the Koran explicitly or even implicitly does) that 50% of it's adherents wear something like the veil is abhorrent to me. But it is not for me or anyone else to criticise, rather it is for education and an open free and liberal society to show that there are many ways and beliefs and all are tolerated. Tolerated without question at all times, especially dare I say, in the 'Land of the Free'.
you are reading too much into this blog. all I am saying is "People shouldn't go around with their faces covered; it's a security issue"
Star Wars characters are now popular among bank robbers. Darth Vader recently walked into the Chase Bank in New York with a hand gun for crowd control. Of course, people at first thought it was a joke. They didn’t think that a 6 foot 2 inches tall man in a helmet and cloak was a real robber.
Good, the teller handed over all the cash in her drawer to Vader. The robber took away on his “Star Destroyer” bicycle. Some people now joke that the famous fiction character was just looking for money to fix his Death Star.
The stupidity of the criminal classes is utterly amazing at times. It has been my job in the past to try and analyse what motivated an individual to carry out a particular crime and design an appropriate counter measure. Too often we failed 'cause no one could fathom any rational reason for the behaviour in the first place! Still, who said crime does not pay, it has afforded me a living for more than a quarter of a century!
It has been my job in the past to try and analyse what motivated an individual to carry out a particular crime
profiler ? - a while back I wrote and E-book about that stuff (yahoo ate it) - in about two weeks time, would you want to work on that type of project with me?
BTW - I get your points - some times I can be "pig headed"
I like to play the Devils advocate from time to time as well. It's just that this issue is so divisive and causes so much ill feeling that I can't in all conscience leave it alone.
LOL as if? 
