Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 You're missing the point. People wearing clothing that indicates that they are low risk aren't stopped and searched as there would be little point. That includes niquabs and suits, it doesn't include balaclavas. None of the items of clothing get you some sort of exemption, some are just targeted more often due to the statistical evidence that indicates the chance of a S&S achieving anything. The fact that the niquab is a low risk item (ie most people wearing them aren't going to and haven't committed a crime) much like those wearing business suits isn't any kind of justification to ban them. Which is what you're trying to argue in some sort of backwards way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Would a Balaclava wearer in a suit not be stopped? Stopped for what reason? Why don't you try it and see if you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 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. Nobody but you is saying that there should be such a presumption. I know, hypocritical isn't it? No, it's correct, you can wear whatever you like whenever you like, the law shouldn't and doesn't constrain your freedom (actually decency laws do, but I think they should be repealed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrel1988 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 im not been funny but where on earth do you live because have you seen attercliffe and broomhall etc. Theyve already started taking over just wait until thier children start having children few years time we'll need a passport to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrel1988 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 If we was in a strict muslim country we would be expected to bide by thier rules, including covering our selfs up. So if they are in our country and they are stopped and searched that should be it end of and if our country was to decide that certain religious clothing or building should no longer be aloud so be it. Not then them saying is racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 You really don't go in for the notion of civil liberties do you?Oh I do, providing exemptions aren't involved. Posted by Hallibut 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. What absence of evidence, there have been crimes committed by people wearing Niqabs, but where the knee jerk response of UK policy makers and managements of public establishments has resulted in all none religious face concealing head gear to be viewed as something that poses risk to security, it seems the Niqab is being made an exception due to it's religious and cultural significance. Posted by Halibut Any item used to cover the face with a similarly low association to crime is also acceptable. Go on then. name one that you wouldn't be required to remove in an establishment of if stopped by police. Posted by Halibut I and anyone else is free to cover their face whenever they wish to do so and long may it last. Of course you're free to cover your face wherever and whenever you choose to, just like you're free to keep a dagger on you at all times... for religious reasons, bit it isn't advisable and isn't viewed as acceptable under any other circumstance. Double standard!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 If we was in a strict muslim country we would be expected to bide by thier rules, including covering our selfs up. Thankfully, we're not in a 'strict Muslim country', so there's no reason for us to behave like one. So if they are in our country and they are stopped and searched that should be it end of and if our country was to decide that certain religious clothing or building should no longer be aloud so be it. Not then them saying is racist. That is the end of it if the police have a reason to stop and search them, just as with the rest of us, but right now there are no laws preventing anyone wearing something that covers their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Oh I do, providing exemptions aren't involved. The exemptions are in your head rather in law though aren't they? A woman wearing a niqab could be and would be stopped and asked to account for themseleves the same as you and I could if a police officer ahd grounds to believe she was up to no good. What absence of evidence, there have been crimes committed by people wearing Niqabs, but where the knee jerk response of UK policy makers and managements of public establishments has resulted in all none religious face concealing head gear to be viewed as something that poses risk to security, it seems the Niqab is being made an exception due to it's religious and cultural significance. Your claim that 'all none religious face concealing head gear' is regarded as a security risk is absolute nonsense. It isn't. Go on then. name one that you wouldn't be required to remove in an establishment of if stopped by police. If the police need to see your face to find out who you are they can do so. That would be equally true whether you were wearing a crash helmet, beekeepers veil, balaclava or niqab. Of course you're free to cover your face wherever and whenever you choose to, just like you're free to keep a dagger on you at all times... for religious reasons, bit it isn't advisable and isn't viewed as acceptable under any other circumstance. Double standard!! I'm free to cover my face for any reason I choose, regardless of whether it's religious or not. A woman wearing a niqab or burqa is similarly free to do so. If a police officer wants either myself or the niqab wearer to remover our face covering and they have a good reason to do so, then they'd ask that we remove it. The 'double standard' is still in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Do you believe in religious/racial profiling for security purposes at airports?Obviously not BF. Why would I? What I believe is, any garment that is worn to conceal the face for religious reasons poses no more or no less of a risk to security than a garment worn for none religious reasons and anyone that thinks different are bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 You're missing the point. People wearing clothing that indicates that they are low risk aren't stopped and searched as there would be little point. That includes niquabs and suits, it doesn't include balaclavas. None of the items of clothing get you some sort of exemption, some are just targeted more often due to the statistical evidence that indicates the chance of a S&S achieving anything. The fact that the niquab is a low risk item (ie most people wearing them aren't going to and haven't committed a crime) much like those wearing business suits isn't any kind of justification to ban them. Which is what you're trying to argue in some sort of backwards way. But we have no other option than to presume that the Niqab is being worn by someone that poses little risk to security. How is it possible to determine whether the person wearing it do or don't pose a risk to security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.