What defines someone being Wrong or right on public forums?

[llamatron]

The use of the word "FACT" at the end of a sentence is proof positive that the poster is correct!

 

 

 

 

......either that or it just highlights idiocy-FACT!

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Or that it's the Federation Against Copyright Theft (films etc.)

[Cyclone]

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

Yes, you're seeing that anything that isn't seen as suspicious is a security risk. Hence my reference to children and elderly people, both not seen as suspicious, and so with your argument both security risks.

If something isn't seen as suspicious because it isn't then there is no risk.

 

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.

If you were correct there would be evidence to support your position. There isn't.

 

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.

They're reacting using a single standard of "is it suspicious". Since it genuinely isn't and therefore they are correct there is no double standard!