The double standard of religious exemptions.

[danot]

Having been kindly requested to conclude an 'off-topic' debate on another thread, I'm opening this one to debate it further.

 

On the aforementioned thread, a side debate ensued over, what I claim to be, "the double standard" that I believe exists within our legislative polices, lawful acts, policing procedures, and the attitudes of people in society towards the unequal rights of religious citizens and none religious citizens.

 

My argument was- why should someone have certain exemptions from legislative policies and lawful acts, or be viewed as being less likely to commit a criminal act if wearing religious head wear which conceals the face but more likely to if they're wearing none religious head wear that conceals the face?

 

I asked why is that Joe public and the police tend to view all none religious citizens as potential criminals if wearing something that conceals their face while religious citizens that conceal their faces aren't considered at all, it's as though their invisible.

 

As the debate developed we got onto the carrying of the Kirpan and why it isn't deemed an 'offensive weapon' when it meets the description of all other offensive weapons that don't have religious significance.

 

I asked why the UK policy makers allow the carrying of it purely on religious grounds when the wearer could just as easily wear a small broach or a pendant in the form of a dagger around the neck which would be just as religiously significant but wouldn't compromise the offensive weapons act.

 

Yet nothing is said about it and nothing is done. Now this might sound like sour grapes to some, but my argument purely on the grounds of fairness and equality and if I had my way, I'd like to see the religious treated no differently that the none religious whereby the covering of the face and the carrying of offensive weapons is viewed the same regardless of faith or culture.

 

I live for the day when a Sikh with a dagger on his person or a Muslim with their face covered, or a Christian pharmacist refusing to sell the pill to a customer are all treated the same way a none religious person would.

 

My opinion, religion belongs in a place of worship, so does everything that goes with it, it's screwing up societies all around the world not just here.

 

There's no reason that I can see why the police or Joe public should view them or treat them any differently, Anyone wearing religious head wear that conceals their face should be considered a potential criminal that the police should approach like they would if it was anyone else and kindly ask them what their reason is for concealing their face in public. If they say their on their way to their place of worship, let them on their way, if they say their going to Morrison, ask them to remove it . Anyone carrying a Kirpan that meets the description of an offensive weapon should have it confiscated, and anyone with conflicting interests that prevents them from carrying out everyday duties at work shouldn't be hired.

[chorba]

How many criminals have committed their crime wearing a burqa in the UK?

 

The burqa is not banned for the simple reason that there is no valid reason why it should be.

 

If criminals start wearing burqas when they commit their crime then banning the burqa might be considered.

[danot]

How many criminals have committed their crime wearing a burqa in the UK?

 

The burqa is not banned for the simple reason that there is no valid reason why it should be.

 

If criminals start wearing burqas when they commit their crime then banning the burqa might be considered.

Not many, but they've started.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

[danot]

Well, are motorcyclists viewed as likely to commit an offence while riding their bike?

 

It is surely about context and reason, a muslim does it because they believe their religion dictates it, the motorcyclist does it because it is the law and for safety - but when there is no apparent reason for it that is when people wonder why they are wearing it. Not really anything to do with religious exemptions.

It's every thing to do with religious exemptions. If it wasn't, none religious face concealing head wear wouldn't have conditional restrictions that dictate why sometimes it's inappropriate to wear them, whereas religious face concealing head wear has no such restrictions.

[boyfriday]

It's every thing to do with religious exemptions. If it wasn't, none religious face concealing head wear wouldn't have conditional restrictions that dictate why sometimes it's inappropriate to wear them, whereas religious face concealing head wear has no such restrictions.

 

Could you tell me what these "conditional restrictions" are, I can't find anywhere reference to it being an offence to cover your face unless you're required to reveal your identity.

 

As usual you're getting things muddled up.

 

Censuring Muslim women for wearing the burka would actually represent a change in the law, since no such prohibition currently exists, so far from the current situation being an exemption, it would actually be changing the law to make a special case of people who wear face coverings for religious reasons, even though there's no comprehensive evidence demonstrating a link between burka wearers and crime.

[MrMoran]

Ban the burka like they have in france.

Its a horrible outfit that has no place in the 21st century.

[LeMaquis]

There's no reason that I can see why the police or Joe public should view them or treat them any differently, Anyone wearing religious head wear that conceals their face should be considered a potential criminal that the police should approach like they would if it was anyone else and kindly ask them what their reason is for concealing their face in public. If they say their on their way to their place of worship, let them on their way, if they say their going to Morrison, ask them to remove it . Anyone carrying a Kirpan that meets the description of an offensive weapon should have it confiscated, and anyone with conflicting interests that prevents them from carrying out everyday duties at work shouldn't be hired.

 

If the police stopped everyone wearing religious headgear how much police time and effort would that take? They'd end up stopping a lot of innocent women whereas crime tends to be carried by men. And how would the police know if they were really going to the mosque or supermarket? Think of the cost of stopping everyone wearing religious headgear. And you can't compare religious headgear to a knife. I've never heard of anyone being headgeared to death.

 

Talking of headgear, a lot of EDL members cover their faces with balaclavas. Are you accepting that they are more likely to commit crime than an anti-EDL demonstrator who isn't wearing religious headgear.

[LeMaquis]

Ban the burka like they have in france.

Its a horrible outfit that has no place in the 21st century.

 

And how much time, money and effort should the police spend enforcing this ban when they could be tackling drugs, violence, robbery, burglary, etc, instead?

[MrMoran]

If the police stopped everyone wearing religious headgear how much police time and effort would that take? They'd end up stopping a lot of innocent women whereas crime tends to be carried by men. And how would the police know if they were really going to the mosque or supermarket? Think of the cost of stopping everyone wearing religious headgear. And you can't compare religious headgear to a knife. I've never heard of anyone being headgeared to death.

 

Talking of headgear, a lot of EDL members cover their faces with balaclavas. Are you accepting that they are more likely to commit crime than an anti-EDL demonstrator who isn't wearing religious headgear.

 

The thread is about religious head gear. Not the EDL.

Religious head gear should be simply banned if it covers the face. That way the police wont waste time and money searching people.

[MrMoran]

And how much time, money and effort should the police spend enforcing this ban when they could be tackling drugs, violence, robbery, burglary, etc, instead?

 

Ask the French. They seem to be doing ok.