boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Try it at the next demonstration. I don't recall hearing of these Sieg-heiling, face concealed EDL supporters being arrested or compelled to reveal their faces: http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/images/2011/04/478340.jpg or these http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_69quosc2EDA/SlER5jawjaI/AAAAAAAAA2s/0xGsggCe9uM/s400/luton+edl.jpg http://ahmedasif.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/edl.jpg?w=320&h=200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 There isn't a law asking you to do anything. There is a law that allows a police officer to ask you to remove it in some circumstances and to seize it in other, even more specific circumstances. It's not illegal to own a screw driver and pry bar. But a police officer can arrest you for carrying them in some circumstances and seize them as evidence. Are you now going to claim that it is illegal to own screw drivers and pry bars? You think it's like talking to the three stooges. I think it's like trying to explain the obvious to a simpleton! Or someone pretending to be one. "They have no legal power to ask you to remove any item of clothing in public view, OTHER THAN that which is concealing your identity. Any facial masking can be confiscated." So if you don't remove it would it be illegal now go and look illegal up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I don't recall hearing of these Sieg-heiling, face concealed EDL supporters being arrested or compelled to reveal their faces: http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/images/2011/04/478340.jpg or these http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_69quosc2EDA/SlER5jawjaI/AAAAAAAAA2s/0xGsggCe9uM/s400/luton+edl.jpg http://ahmedasif.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/edl.jpg?w=320&h=200 There has been a link and video on this forum, do keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 That's why our view is irrelevant, we've no experience of ID checks being carried out on burka wearers so all this double standard talk is pure speculation.The reason we've no experience of it is because there's no accounts of such checks having been carried out on Niqab wearers. Such checks are only deemed necessary on those who conceal their face with none cultural or religious garments. What ever previous crimes have been committed by motorcycle helmet and balaclava wearing criminals have little relevance to why wearing either one is viewed as being more of a potential security risk than if wearing a Niqab. The crimes of yesteryear are of no concern, nor are they compromising security today... they're history. Balaclava wearers and goggle jacket wearers aren't stopped in the street by police because of crimes committed yesteryear, they're stopped on the grounds of precautionary police procedure to prevent anyone who they're not sure about, who they presume might be intent on committing crime from doing so, which is how it should be, regardless of what it is they're wearing. Until UK policy makers realize that the way in which the current security and policing procedures are viewing the Niqab as posing very little risk to security due it having no association with the crimes of yesteryear, security will continue being compromised by the double standard of religious exemptions. Posted by boyfriday..and I'm sure they'd answer it I don't share your optimism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Because there's no evidence to the contrary; because it's worn by religiously observant Muslim women for reasons of modesty and because such women are not known for their criminality.I didn't ask you to define it's purpose Halibut. Care to try again?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 There has been a link and video on this forum, do keep up I know, I was just pointing out that any reluctance on the part of the police to ask burka wearers to reveal their faces is also extended to members of the EDL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 The reason we've no experience of it is because there's no accounts of such checks having been carried out on Niqab wearers. Such checks are only deemed necessary on those who conceal their face with none cultural or religious garments. I've yet to see any legal basis for that conclusion. What ever previous crimes have been committed by motorcycle helmet and balaclava wearing criminals have little relevance to why wearing either one is viewed as being more of a potential security risk than if wearing a Niqab. The crimes of yesteryear are of no concern, nor are they compromising security today... they're history. Who said they are more of a security risk? It isn't illegal to wear a motorcycle helmet of balaclava either! Balaclava wearers and goggle jacket wearers aren't stopped in the street by police because of crimes committed yesteryear, they're stopped on the grounds of precautionary police procedure to prevent anyone who they're not sure about, who they presume might be intent on committing crime from doing so, which is how it should be, regardless of what it is they're wearing. I think you're off speculating again danot. Until UK policy makers realize that the way in which the current security and policing procedures are viewing the Niqab as posing very little risk to security due it having no association with the crimes of yesteryear, security will continue being compromised by the double standard of religious exemptions. We've already established there is no double standard because there is no exemption in law for people who wear a burka from having to prove their identity if required to do so, nor can you say what the incidence of burka wearers being challenged by the police is..so guess what? You're speculating yet again. I don't share your optimism. You're familiar with the maxim 'if you don't try you'll never know'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 I certainly can. It applies equally to people wearing non religious face coverings as those with them. The key phrase is 'if required'. The police quite rightly are unlikely to ask your average niqab wearer to prove her identity since she's pretty unlikely to be criminally inclined for reasons that have already been outlined. The law allows them to though, in the same way it allows them to ask your average run of the mill scrote, burglar or mugger to show their face. No double standard there, except in your head. My bold: There you go again defending the police for automatically presuming the every Niqab wearer is a Muslim women that is unlikely to be criminally inclined. What reason have you (and the police) to automatically presume this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 "They have no legal power to ask you to remove any item of clothing in public view, OTHER THAN that which is concealing your identity. Any facial masking can be confiscated." So if you don't remove it would it be illegal now go and look illegal up. ..what's so hard to understand? The offence is created by the refusal to remove a face covering if asked to do so by a uniformed police officer, not by the act of wearing it whether it be a rubber mask, scarf, balaclava, burka or motorcycle helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 My bold: There you go again defending the police for automatically presuming the every Niqab wearer is a Muslim women that is unlikely to be criminally inclined. What reason have you (and the police) to automatically presume this? None whatsoever, but what evidence do they have that a motorcycle helmet wearer actually has a motorcycle? Lordy, it could be anybody under there, even Lord Lucan, or maybe Shergar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.