What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[Cyclone]

We're talking about head wear though, the Sikh isn't relevant.

 

What private businesses do is their own business, the point is that the law allows us all to behave largely as we like with regards to clothing, as it should.

 

Nobody is automatically presumed to be a risk to security, the risk is assessed on the evidence available, the fact that more crimes have been committed by people wearing balaclava than niquab isn't in doubt is it?

[HeadingNorth]

Some of us that do it are automatically presumed to pose a potential risk to security, and some of us never are. Which in itself, must pose risk to security.

 

Your conclusion does not follow from your premisses - even assuming your premisses are correct, which I believe they probably are.

 

Not considering someone a threat to security does not automatically pose a risk to security.

[danot]

Your conclusion does not follow from your premisses - even assuming your premisses are correct, which I believe they probably are.

 

Not considering someone a threat to security does not automatically pose a risk to security.

Agreed, but it would compromise security procedures.

 

Can you not see that security is being compromised from the outset? The reason being, nobody (neither you, nor me, nor security or the police) is able to determine the identity of a Niqab wearer, which means, the only option anyone has is to assume that it's probably a Muslim woman because we have no grounds to question it. Making this assumption poses the risk.. because it night not be a Muslim woman.

 

isn't that plainly obvious.

[Cyclone]

You might as well argue that not considering children or elderly grandmothers to be a security risk compromises security.

 

It isn't correct though, accurately assessing the likelihood of someone being a risk is a key element of maintaining security because it's impossible to treat everyone like a security risk, which is what your argument would result in when taken to the extreme.

[Obelix]

There are no rights involved when we're talking about private business. Nobody has the right to wear a particular garment and still demand service.

 

Are you sure about that? Requiring that a person remove a yarmulk, niquab/hiijab or a turban et al would seem to me to be falling foul of the various religious discrimination laws.

[Cyclone]

I can't see how it would. Treating people of different religions differently would be discrimination. A blanket rule that says we don't serve people unless we can see their face couldn't be any less discriminatory could it!

[HeadingNorth]

Agreed, but it would compromise security procedures.

 

Can you not see that security is being compromised from the outset? The reason being, nobody (neither you, nor me, nor security or the police) is able to determine the identity of a Niqab wearer, which means, the only option anyone has is to assume that it's probably a Muslim woman because we have no grounds to question it. Making this assumption poses the risk.. because it night not be a Muslim woman.

 

isn't that plainly obvious.

 

Only if you insist on believing that the assumption is unjustified. All available evidence suggests that it is not.

[danot]

You might as well argue that not considering children or elderly grandmothers to be a security risk compromises security.

I thought the reason you didn't want to discuss Sikhs was because we're discussing face concealing head wear only? So what's that about^

 

Posted by Cyclone

It isn't correct though, accurately assessing the likelihood of someone being a risk is a key element of maintaining security because it's impossible to treat everyone like a security risk, which is what your argument would result in when taken to the extreme.

No, not everyone, only those who draw suspicion by concealing their face. This is who we're talking about.. remember?

[Cyclone]

So now you're saying that despite the evidence to the contrary, concealing your face with a niquab is suspicious. It isn't though.

 

And 'that' was about the logical extension to your argument, not discussing something else, but demonstrating that your desired security policy of 'everyone is a suspect' isn't workable.

[danot]

So now you're saying that despite the evidence to the contrary, concealing your face with a niquab is suspicious. It isn't though.

No. I know Niqabs aren't seen as suspicious, that's my reason for saying they compromise security and create a double standard.

 

Posted by Cyclone

And 'that' was about the logical extension to your argument, not discussing something else, but demonstrating that your desired security policy of 'everyone is a suspect' isn't workable.

I acknowledge, as would anyone, that no amount of security procedures could ever accurately assess or predetermine the sociological characteristics of everyone, which is why I'm not claiming that it could.

 

I'm claiming that by assuming and rarely questioning that every Niqab wearer is a Muslim woman who poses very little risk to security, we are inadvertently compromising our own security.

 

I'm unable to think of one other face concealing garment that isn't reacted towards as being a potential risk to security. And the fact that policy makers and the attitudes of some in society is- 'oh, stop being stupid, Muslim women don't pose a risk to security'- goes to show that such attitudes towards Niqabs (not Muslim women) are treating Niqabs as the 'exception to the rule', a 'double standard', which compromises security.