Jump to content

Assuming Britain actually is a secular country- can it remain so?


danot

Recommended Posts

If that's the description they were given they'd have to.

 

I doubt You'd even ask that if goggle jackets were in question, I suspect you'd simply expect the police to approach anyone found wearing a goggle jacket, kindly ask them to remove their hood while they question them in order to eliminate those who are unconnected to the robbery from their inquires once they've ran checks. This is routine police procedure when dealing with none religious face concealing head wear. Why shouldn't religious head gear be dealt with in the same way?

Yes, you're just being ridiculous.

 

You must think that people who commit crime, and the police, are really really stupid. If someone commits a crime whilst hiding their identity, they then run around the city centre still wearing their disguise... That's not hiding their identity, it's a big sign saying "It was me, come and arrest me".

 

Can you even imagine what would happen if the police ordered an innocent Muslim woman to remove her headdress because they wrongly suspected her of being an harmed robber wearing a Niqab?

Can you imagine if someone dressed normally committed a crime.

Do the police then question every normally dressed person in the vicinity?

 

You know as well as I do that they'll avoid that happening at all costs. At all costs.

 

You have to ask, if it's such a brilliant plan, why isn't it being used more often...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall ever hearing of a crime committed locally where the assailant was wearing a burka.

 

I think if we had figures for the number of crimes committed by women wearing a burka and the number of crimes committed by men wearing EDL balaclavas, facemasks, t-shirts, jackets, etc, it wouldn't be close. The last person I know who committed a crime while wearing religious dress was Tommy Robinson who breached his bail while for some reason disguised badly in orthodox Jewish dress.

 

The problem with danot, mrmoran, et al, is that their arguments are all based on if this happened, if that happened, etc. It's never facts. That's obviously for 2 reasons - paranoia about an imagined threat and embarrassment about the reality of the criminality of their own side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon there will be big changes within the Muslim communities over the next few generations with a more western style being adopted.

 

I reckon this has probably already started.

 

Travelling from Woodhouse to Chapeltown yesterday afternoon at school chucking out time, I would say that well over half of the Asian schoolgirls I saw were very definitely dressed in the western style. Although most were wearing uniforms, a lot of them had on a short skirt, so fashionable among the young people today (rather than the trousers option) and hairstyles were definitely of the 'modern' variety. Those wearing scarfs or other head covering were definitely in the minority.

 

Now not all Asians follow Islam there being plenty of Hindus and Sikhs among them, but given that the majority of Asian kids in Darnall and Firth Park where I was, are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, I'd say the 'traditionalists' were in the minority.

 

Which direction these girls go as they get older is by no means certain. In 2011 you would expect them to become more modern rather than less. Ironically, the only thing I can see pushing them backwards rather than forwards would be a sense of oppressed cultural identity caused by those racist idiots who insist on calling them, extemists, terrorists and suicide bombers.

 

John X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you really think so?

 

The EDL bloke was was asked to remove his mask under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

 

A Section 60AA authorisation confers power on an officer in uniform:

 

(a) to remove any item which the officer reasonably believes is used wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity

 

As the EDL bloke does not go around every day with his face covered, it can be reasonably assumed that he is wearing that mask "wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity" just for this particular demo.

 

The Muslim woman on the other hand, wears her face covering all the time including indoors in the company of those who already know her identity. So it can be reasonably assumed that she is not wearing it "wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity".

 

Section 60 is being applied correctly in both cases. (except for the glaring gender bias in the legislation lol! :D)

 

So where is the double standard? :confused:

 

John X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.