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

[Halibut]

my argument is that the Niqab(not the wearer)poses risk to security as it's never questioned but always assumed that a Muslim woman is wearing it.

 

You claim it's a 'security risk'.

Is there any real evidence of that?

Where are all the muggings, robberies and thefts which support your claim?

[danot]

Probably not.

Then we're in agreement.

 

 

 

Posted by Halibut

No, of course not, are you?

Is it even necessary to ask me this?

[boyfriday]

Yes but you can't stand in line at the cashier dressed in a Mickey Mouse mask, it would kind of tip them off of your intention....

 

But it isn't a criminal offence to 'stand in line at the cashier wearing a Mickey Mouse mask' and the 'intention' to engage in criminality will have been formed in the minds of the bank by previous experience, so they make a commercial decision on that basis.

[danot]

You claim it's a 'security risk'.

Is there any real evidence of that?

Where are all the muggings, robberies and thefts which support your claim?

Now you're being obtuse. Just because the associated statistical evidence of Niqabs and crime is less damning that that of balaclava's and crime doesn't make the Niqab any less of a risk to security.

 

By your reasoning, anything worn to conceal the face which could be proved statistically that it's association with crime is no more evident than of the Niqab could and should be acceptable to wear wherever and whenever the wearer chooses. We both know this isn't the case Halibut.

[Cyclone]

I'm fully aware that this is the case Halibut as I've been stressing the point in my argument for goodness knows how long.

 

Which corroborates my point Halibut. Coppers(you also)feel Niqab wearers pose no risk to security because they aren't to any great extent "associated with a propensity for crime", which in all likelihood is an accurate assumption. However, this isn't what I've been arguing, my argument is that the Niqab(not the wearer)poses risk to security as it's never questioned but always assumed that a Muslim woman is wearing it. This is why Niqab wearers are exempt from random stop and check police procedures, despite the police having no damn idea who it is that's wearing them.

 

They aren't exempt, they just aren't a target as they're low risk.

 

People in suits aren't often stopped and searched either, is that a reason to make suits illegal?

[Cyclone]

Now you're being obtuse. Just because the associated statistical evidence of Niqabs and crime is less damning that that of balaclava's and crime doesn't make the Niqab any less of a risk to security.

So what you're saying is that using evidence to determine whether a risk is real or imagined is obtuse. And that actually we should act based on groundless speculation instead?

 

By your reasoning, anything worn to conceal the face which could be proved statistically that it's association with crime is no more evident than of the Niqab could and should be acceptable to wear wherever and whenever the wearer chooses. We both know this isn't the case Halibut.

That's the current legal situation.

[Halibut]

Now you're being obtuse. Just because the associated statistical evidence of Niqabs and crime is less damning that that of balaclava's and crime doesn't make the Niqab any less of a risk to security.

By your reasoning, anything worn to conceal the face which could be proved statistically that it's association with crime is no more evident than of the Niqab could and should be acceptable to wear wherever and whenever the wearer chooses. We both know this isn't the case Halibut.

 

You really don't go in for the notion of civil liberties do you?

 

In the absence of evidence that people wearing niqabs are likely to commit murder, robbery or muggings of course it's a low risk to security.

 

Any item used to cover the face with a similarly low association to crime is also acceptable.

 

I and anyone else is free to cover their face whenever they wish to do so and long may it last.

[boyfriday]

Now you're being obtuse. Just because the associated statistical evidence of Niqabs and crime is less damning that that of balaclava's and crime doesn't make the Niqab any less of a risk to security.

 

By your reasoning, anything worn to conceal the face which could be proved statistically that it's association with crime is no more evident than of the Niqab could and should be acceptable to wear wherever and whenever the wearer chooses. We both know this isn't the case Halibut.

 

Do you believe in religious/racial profiling for security purposes at airports?

[danot]

They aren't exempt, they just aren't a target as they're low risk.

 

People in suits aren't often stopped and searched either, is that a reason to make suits illegal?

 

Would a Balaclava wearer in a suit not be stopped?

[danot]

So what you're saying is that using evidence to determine whether a risk is real or imagined is obtuse. And that actually we should act based on groundless speculation instead?

No. I'm saying that it's naive of anyone to never question but simply automatically presume that every Niqab wearer is a Muslim woman. To presume that must pose risk to security. It's that simple.

 

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

That's the current legal situation.

I know, hypocritical isn't it?