Reason headscarves have never been used as a disguise in a crime, chavs are too thick to have thought of it, and if they did, the baseball cap perched on top of it would give them away, along with the poundland trainers.
Should muslim women remove their veil in stores?
- Thread starter hypothetical fact
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know where you live but here in Aerica we have something called the First Amendment that let's people express themselves anywhere and that includes the inside of stores. Just because you come from another land you shouldn't have to compromise who you are to go somewhere else. I get what you are saying though because I hate when people speak a foreign language around me because I can't understand what they are saying but that doesn't mean I'm going to force them to speak the local language.mosinmatt said:
If it is a choice between freedom and safety, I choose both. Telling people what they can and can't wear won't stop theft just force them to change their methods. For instance, a trenchcoat can hold many purloined items without anyone being wise to what's really going on so does that mean we should ban trenchcoats. NO. If we want safer stores, we shouldn't start with the criminals but the store itself. Security guards, cameras, and well trained employees are obstacles that criminals can't change unlike their clothes. Invent new ways to defend your store instead making the customer go through hoops just to shop.Mazty said:
I guess so. But I don't really remember the exact phrasing the airline used. And in this case, the definition of jewellery could be debated. Whether they were right or wrong I personally couldn't have told her to cover up her 'jewellery'. And as for baseball caps and t-shirts, they're definitely fashion items regardless of how devoted the person is to their team or videogame.
Banning trenchcoats is cheap, hiring security guards is not. If all stores need guards alot of stores will go out of business because guards are very expensive, can you say economic collapse; the ability to wear clothes that conceal a person's identity will also render all security cameras useless.Jeronus said:
But forcing customers to dress a certain way just to enter your store won't affect business at all. You will probably lose money even though theft will go down considerably. Like I said before people will go elsewhere rather than jump through hoops to shop.
The only kind of crime that CCTV is effective against is car crime the kind that usually takes place in deserted car parks) and this conclusion has been reached consistently since 2002 - so exactly how are cameras on the streets and in shops about improving your security? Wake up and get real people, the only reason why hoodies, helmets and hijabs are frowned upon is because they are effective against biometrically enabled cameras which would otherwise log your every move and catalogue it to the national identity database. Whilst you lot are squabbling over religion and feeling comfortable the government laughs its socks off at you and we move inexorably towards total 24/7 surveillance and the police state. Keep your eyes on the real issue here and stop having your strings pulled into arguing about religion and culture. Anyone who values privacy and who is opposed to the police and database state really ought to don a hoodie, helmet or hijab. Security is not achieved by surveillance. Does more distrust make you feel more secure? Have a think about what it will really take to make you feel unafraid and cultivate that! It is your fear that has made Britain the most surveilled country on the planet. Anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves and will get neither. There is no such thing as suspicious clothing - only suspicious people. Assigning dubious motivations to people on the basis of dress, association, reading material, sexual orientation of parents, educational levels is getting dangerously close to thought crime.
Copter asked "I'd like to ask, have there been any instances of criminal activity performed by women in full hijab?" and Sequio said "EDIT: http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=55342
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/10/ukcrime.hughmuir
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\11\story_11-2-2007_pg7_2"
But hang on, this is one incident not three and the questioner asked about women, this was two men. I would imagine long dresses are a little bit inconvenient for your average terrorist - risk of tripping during quick getaways and hence they tend not to be the garment of choice. But some criminals carry rucksacks, wear false beards or glasses, wigs or even face paints. Shall we ban these while we're at it? Perhaps the security guard at Tesco's will be pulling customers' beards and hair to make sure it's real. Chemotherapy no excuse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/10/ukcrime.hughmuir
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\11\story_11-2-2007_pg7_2"
But hang on, this is one incident not three and the questioner asked about women, this was two men. I would imagine long dresses are a little bit inconvenient for your average terrorist - risk of tripping during quick getaways and hence they tend not to be the garment of choice. But some criminals carry rucksacks, wear false beards or glasses, wigs or even face paints. Shall we ban these while we're at it? Perhaps the security guard at Tesco's will be pulling customers' beards and hair to make sure it's real. Chemotherapy no excuse.
In summation: Much as I dislike Islam for it's consistent offending of my senses, I would say that the pro-Hijab camp has convinced me, the filthy lefties they are. Personal freedoms overrule the freedoms of a bunch of shopkeepers. Why? Because Everyone has personal freedoms, even shopkeepers, wheras only shopkeepers have shopkeeper-freedoms. And so on.
And now, on a more important note: Who wants to join me in retaking Constatinople (Otherwise known as Ist-an-bul) from Johnny Turk? The Greeks will pay $100,000 US on entry into the contract, $10,000 a month and you get to keep whatever you can steal.
And now, on a more important note: Who wants to join me in retaking Constatinople (Otherwise known as Ist-an-bul) from Johnny Turk? The Greeks will pay $100,000 US on entry into the contract, $10,000 a month and you get to keep whatever you can steal.
Congratulations guys.
The Muslim women want the right to wear a hat.
You people hear: WE VANT TO VER HOUR VEELS SO VE CAN VESTROY YOU!
Awesome.
Awesome.
The Muslim women want the right to wear a hat.
You people hear: WE VANT TO VER HOUR VEELS SO VE CAN VESTROY YOU!
Awesome.
Awesome.
I've been following your argument for a while now about how one poster is intolerant because he believes that women in veils is "bullshit" (to quote the poster)Abedeus said:
To express an opinion without negative emotions makes it okay? What? Emotion is what helps us form opinions in the first place. Granted the poster was not eloquent in his wording but he got his view point across - he believed that this part of the Muslim faith isn't right. And he has every right to express this without you dictating rules as to how it should be done. Like I said, it wasn't a tactful presentation but that doesn't make it invalid.
To be tolerant of something doesn't mean you have to like it. Personally I have no love for the Muslim faith as a whole. And yes I have studied it and talked to those who follow it faithfully so that my questions can be answered. I really dislike it. But I also believe that people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't hinder the rights of others. (There are many arguments that can be made as to how Islam takes away rights from people along with other religions but that is for a different thread).
People confuse being tolerant with having to actually like something. That's not true at all. You tolerate the screaming children in a resturant but you don't have to like it. I think this is a point that you and many others today miss.
As to the OP - yes I believe that any article that obstructs the view of the face should be removed if the shopkeeper/bank/etc deem it necessary. Let's be honest, if we can't see someone's face we tend to get more nervous regardless of what it is that's blocking it. Imagine owning a store that has a lot of cash on hand and having people come in whose faces are not visable. You would be antsy, more on guard and just overall jittery even if they turned out to be the nicest human beings on earth. We want to see the faces of others - plus it also helps to deter theft. If the chance of people seeing your face and IDing you for a crime is high, then you are more likely to think twice about the whole thing. Just common sense.
These Muslim women do not have to take all of their headgear off - I see absolutely no reason why they cannot continue to wear a scarf to cover their hair while shopping in stores as long as their face is entirely visible.
Plus you never know if the person under that veil is even a woman. Lots of islamic attacks were done by men who disguised themselves as veiled women.
In my opinion, the hijab is a traditional thing, not a religious thing. It's just a tradition among muslims. And I find it to be stupid, & at some points even sexist, but that's just me. That doesn't keep me from having friends that are veiled, I've even talked about the subject with them.
As for whether they should be forced to take it off in shops etc, I really don't know. The logic behind the veil is to keep your face from being seen by anyone in public, taken off only among family & girlfriends. Forcing them to take it off kinda voids the point of even wearing a veil. But the security risk is a big deal.
Having to wear something as dictated by tradition is a pain, since it causes complications, such as the above mentioned. I support removing the tradition of wearing veils altogether, but I'm against having laws against the tradition as long as it exists.
In my opinion, the hijab is a traditional thing, not a religious thing. It's just a tradition among muslims. And I find it to be stupid, & at some points even sexist, but that's just me. That doesn't keep me from having friends that are veiled, I've even talked about the subject with them.
As for whether they should be forced to take it off in shops etc, I really don't know. The logic behind the veil is to keep your face from being seen by anyone in public, taken off only among family & girlfriends. Forcing them to take it off kinda voids the point of even wearing a veil. But the security risk is a big deal.
Having to wear something as dictated by tradition is a pain, since it causes complications, such as the above mentioned. I support removing the tradition of wearing veils altogether, but I'm against having laws against the tradition as long as it exists.
...Sources?PsykoDragon said:
Otherwise, I'm taking this as part of the 80% of statistics that are made up on the spot.
Yes I think they should, as long as I am restricted from doing something similar for non-religious reasons. I live in Britain after all, and people arent allowed motorcycle helmets on in shops or other places, I mean I wasnt even allowed to keep a wooly hat on indoors at my college. You expect me to accept Muslim womens right to cover their entire faces because they believe in something that to put it lighty, is nothing but garbage to me personally? I respect peoples rights to believe in something, but I dont expect them to get different or preferential treatment because of it. Last I checked the country I live in is a secular one, and I think that should be reflected in areas concerning everyone. If people dont like it, I think they would be best served moving to somewhere where their beliefs are the majority. If I cant cover some or all of my face sometimes because I want to, I dont see why others should be allowed to because of some ancient text that tells them to. This actually applies to all religious headgear as well.
As far as Im concerned either everyone is allowed to cover their faces for whatever reason they wish, or nobody is.
As far as Im concerned either everyone is allowed to cover their faces for whatever reason they wish, or nobody is.