Face Covering in Public in Canada

[ToadBrother]

TB, that is just the point, it could be a man or a woman beneath the burka we don't know. The idea of suicide bombers walking around with their explosives hidden with their burka scares me to death. They can walk onto any plane, into any school into any government building and blow themselves up because we're too scared to ask them to remove it to ID them to ensure the rest of us are safe from Muslim terror.

A guy wearing a trench coat can hide an Uzi in it. Are you proposing a ban of trench coats?

Here is a clipping of a burka clad suicide bomber, this happened a couple weeks ago. There was one of a woman in Israel as well, I'll try to find it for you.

I have no doubt it can be used that way, or any number of types of clothing can be used to conceal weapons or explosives. Do you honestly want to start banning every type of clothing that could theoretically or potentially be used in an attack of some kind?

This type of violence can happen in Canada, please don't cause you and your ilks naiveté cost innocent Canadian lives. When it does happen you'll blame the Tories for it I'm sure. It'll be all Mike Harris' fault.

I'm not buying it at all. It's a post hoc rationalization, pure and simple.

[dre]

This type of violence can happen in Canada, please don't cause you and your ilks naiveté cost innocent Canadian lives. When it does happen you'll blame the Tories for it I'm sure. It'll be all Mike Harris' fault.

Yes, thousands of innocent Canadians die every day, from a whole host of real and tangible threats. If veil wearing suicide bombers become a threat, then well have to look at the best way to mitigate that threat, but in the mean time we dont need to do jack shit.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, thousands of innocent Canadians die every day, from a whole host of real and tangible threats. If veil wearing suicide bombers become a threat, then well have to look at the best way to mitigate that threat, but in the mean time we dont need to do jack shit.

So you'd rather wait until something terrible happens before taking action. That's a wonderful attitude to have, do nothing. You must be from the "Me Generation". I prefer to be proactive and take steps necessary before something happens. Muslim terror will strike again no matter what we do but why make it easy for them?

People in trench coats aren't blowing up buildings, trains and buses several times every year, they aren't involved in global terrorist groups. Most importantly they can be identified.

Burka wearers could employ black bloc style tactics in their next terrorist attack. Do their deed then run back into the crowd of burka wearers. We cannot ID them when wearing these bed sheet style covering.

I, unlike you would rather be proactive then reactive.

[dre]

So you'd rather wait until something terrible happens before taking action. That's a wonderful attitude to have, do nothing. You must be from the "Me Generation". I prefer to be proactive and take steps necessary before something happens. Muslim terror will strike again no matter what we do but why make it easy for them?

People in trench coats aren't blowing up buildings, trains and buses several times every year, they aren't involved in global terrorist groups. Most importantly they can be identified.

Burka wearers could employ black bloc style tactics in their next terrorist attack. Do their deed then run back into the crowd of burka wearers. We cannot ID them when wearing these bed sheet style covering.

I, unlike you would rather be proactive then reactive.

So you'd rather wait until something terrible happens before taking action. That's a wonderful attitude to have, do nothing. You must be from the "Me Generation". I prefer to be proactive and take steps necessary before something happens. Muslim terror will strike again no matter what we do but why make it easy for them?

Terrible things happen all the time. Dozens or hundreds of innocent Canadians die every day.

I simply want efforts that we put into threat mitigation to be proportionate to the threats. A suicide bombing by a women wearing a veil isnt even in the top 1000 of things likely to kill a Canadian citizen, so its not rational to be obsessed by it.

Youre caught up in the hysterical emotionalism thats emerged with regard to terrorism... You have irrational fears and paranoia that I dont share. Terrorism is relatively small problem, and while I do think we should keep an eye on it, and take some common sense security measures in cases where they are legal and reasonable, I just dont see the point of being obsessed with it.

Your assertion that we must prevent ANY acts of terrorism at ALL costs (trillions of dollars so far) is the NEW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. In a "post 911 world" anybody that doesnt gleefully lap up the notion that terrorism is by far the biggest threat we face is a traitor or appeaser, and must support all counter terrorism efforts (or we hate the troops!).

I call bullshit on that. There IS no fuckin "post 911" world. Terrorism has been around for thousands of years, and it will be around for thousands more. Its a relatively minor threat that has be managed, nothing more.

[PIK]

Airport workers in montreal allowed veiled women onto flights without having them lift it for a proper ID, this is how shit happens, these people need to be fired.

[ToadBrother]

Airport workers in montreal allowed veiled women onto flights without having them lift it for a proper ID, this is how shit happens, these people need to be fired.

I agree completely. But I still can't advocate or accept a veil ban.

[ToadBrother]

So you'd rather wait until something terrible happens before taking action. That's a wonderful attitude to have, do nothing. You must be from the "Me Generation". I prefer to be proactive and take steps necessary before something happens. Muslim terror will strike again no matter what we do but why make it easy for them?

Hmmm... I think you're going to overthrow our government and install a Francoesque dictatorship. I think I'd better hunt you down, bundle you up and throw you in a hole. For prevention's sake, of course.

People in trench coats aren't blowing up buildings, trains and buses several times every year, they aren't involved in global terrorist groups. Most importantly they can be identified.

Some shot up a bunch of kids in a high school. Surely that's evidence of the danger of trench coats.

Burka wearers could employ black bloc style tactics in their next terrorist attack. Do their deed then run back into the crowd of burka wearers. We cannot ID them when wearing these bed sheet style covering.

You could buy a gun and shoot up a liquor store. Want to be banned from owning a gun because of that?

I, unlike you would rather be proactive then reactive.

No, you're a bigot looking for rationales for your bigotry.

[bush_cheney2004]

What's more, the state's ability to control what people wear is not infinite in scope.

It doesn't have to be infinite...and has been brought to bear in many other instances. So any notion that government can't limit such things is mistaken. That it should apply to veils is left to the same processes and court challenges.

My bank will not permit me to wear a ski mask in the lobby....should I sue for my rights?

[ToadBrother]

It doesn't have to be infinite...and has been brought to bear in many other instances. So any notion that government can't limit such things is mistaken. That it should apply to veils is left to the same processes and court challenges.

My bank will not permit me to wear a ski mask in the lobby....should I sue for my rights?

Didn't we already cover this ground?

[bush_cheney2004]

Didn't we already cover this ground?

I thought so...but then you posted this:

...I do not support these veils, but I do support the notion of a state that does not have the power to tell people what to wear or what the religious orthodoxy is.....

[Guest TrueMetis]

I do not know about that. I do not think secular respect for the teachings attributed to Jesus is any worse than respect for anyone else on the basis of their morality. Not only religious figures get praised.

I don't know, this generally isn't discussed much but Jesus threatens a lot of people with death and hell fire. He wasn't exactly a good guy.

[ToadBrother]

I thought so...but then you posted this:

...I do not support these veils, but I do support the notion of a state that does not have the power to tell people what to wear or what the religious orthodoxy is.....

Yes, well, taking things out of context is always easier. But, if you would like I will reiterate.

I do not support a general ban of veils, full stop. As with anything, there are reasonable restrictions on liberties (ie. not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater), but those restrictions should be of limited scope and for specific reasons. In other words, in the interests of security; veils in customs, airport security, banks, government offices and such must be removed for verification purposes, or for health and safety purposes.

Can we now all agree that I have made my position clear so that no one feels the need to ignore large portions of what I post in the hopes of scoring rhetorical points?

[ToadBrother]

I don't know, this generally isn't discussed much but Jesus threatens a lot of people with death and hell fire. He wasn't exactly a good guy.

I don't think Jesus did too much of that. That was mainly St. Paul and, allegedly (if you believe he wrote it), St. John in Revelations.

[bloodyminded]

Didn't we already cover this ground?

Several times, in near-unanimous agreement, by multiple posters, every single time this subject is brought up, without exception.

I can see why people keep missing it, and consider it such a heated aspect of the larger debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Can we now all agree that I have made my position clear so that no one feels the need to ignore large portions of what I post in the hopes of scoring rhetorical points?

No, your position remains muddy at best, and worthy of any politician. "I do not support these veils..." derailed any previous point in or out of context.

So now we can agree the state does have the authority to limit such things in the public interest. Nothing special about veils.

[ToadBrother]

No, your position remains muddy at best, and worthy of any politician. "I do not support these veils..." derailed any previous point in or out of context.

So now we can agree the state does have the authority to limit such things in the public interest. Nothing special about veils.

The state's power in this is not unlimited. It can ban face masks where security is an issue, but an attempt at a general ban would likely be ruled as being overexpansive.

But then, you know that, but this is all about some sort of moronic rhetorical game.

[bush_cheney2004]

The state's power in this is not unlimited. It can ban face masks where security is an issue, but an attempt at a general ban would likely be ruled as being overexpansive.

Not necessarily...see the ironic reverse circumstance of restrictions on total nudity in publc. The government's "attempt" is very expansive (even in "Nice Tits!" Ontario).

But then, you know that, but this is all about some sort of moronic rhetorical game.

Isn't that what all of this is? Or can we win a new car?

Edited August 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Mr.Canada]

Hmmm... I think you're going to overthrow our government and install a Francoesque dictatorship. I think I'd better hunt you down, bundle you up and throw you in a hole. For prevention's sake, of course.

That is absolutely absurd TB. So you're trying to make my point look equally absurd by comparison, I see what you're doing. However I do belong to a worldwide terrorist ring nor do I have terror training camps spread around the globe.

Some shot up a bunch of kids in a high school. Surely that's evidence of the danger of trench coats.

...and this is the point I knew you'd make which is why I stated that these types aren't organizing on a world wide basis trying to take down our way of life. Nor are they trying to breed us out as some Muslims are doing, this is why they have so many children. So that in a generation they'll be the majority and will change the west forever if we do nothing.

You could buy a gun and shoot up a liquor store. Want to be banned from owning a gun because of that?

I own firearms as it is now. Yet I have yet to shoot or even point a firearm at a human being and I haven't knocked off the local 7-11 yet either. I think the Liquor store robs us, with the prices they charge compared to the same bottle in the US....they don't wear face coverings while doing it though. Another good reason to privatize it, so we can stop paying inflated union wages for some Quickie Mart drop out to stand at a cash register.

No, you're a bigot looking for rationales for your bigotry.

I see. So anyone who doesn't bend and follow the herd into believing the Left wing view of the world is a bigot. Glad we cleared that up.

[Jack Weber]

I don't think Jesus did too much of that. That was mainly St. Paul and, allegedly (if you believe he wrote it), St. John in Revelations.

Just a point of clarifiction...

It's The Book of Revelation...Singular...

There is going to the revealing of one Messiah,not many messiah's...It's kind of important when dealing with a monotheistic faith...

[betsy]

Banning veils is simply religious bigotry dressed up as public safety.

With a sweeping statement like this, why would I think you have some reasonable restrictions?

You're as bad as Mr. Canada. I never said there weren't reasonable restrictions on where the veil could be worn. I have to ask, have you actually read what I wrote? I mean, you managed to quote pieces of my post, but left out the parts that dealt with banks, government buildings and the like.

Well it seems you have not read my posts either. I made it clear that I support the banning in PUBLIC PLACES! So can we say then that we both agree that they shouldn't be allowed in government buildings, banks and other public places? Are we together on this one?

I do love the part about schools, because those who would seek to destroy liberty so often use "the children" as the rationale. You've used both in one post, "the terrorists win" and "for the sake of the children."

So what's your answer? Are you against banning ski masked people from entering your child's school?

Edited August 4, 2010 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

I see. So anyone who doesn't bend and follow the herd into believing the Left wing view of the world is a bigot. Glad we cleared that up.

I would think that Toadbrother's (and my own) view on this matter (if not on many others) coincide quite exactly with that of conservative libertarians.

[betsy]

If you ban head coverings for Muslims, you'd also have to ban anything with a hood like a parka or sweatshirt.

Just for clarification, it's not the same at all.

Burkas are rare in Canada. They totally obliterate the identity of the woman inside. The face is covered with a mesh grille, like a beekeeper’s hat.

But less rare is the niqab, which leaves a slit open for the eyes.

I've seen both niqab and burkas....the ones I've seen are also wearing loose-fitting clothes all the way to their toes. Now I don't know if they all come like that....but definitely the faces are covered. The niqab can be compared with a ski mask - only slits for the eyes can be seen.

Parka hood is similar to hijab...the face is still visible. I have no problem with the hijab.

[bloodyminded]

Just for clarification, it's not the same at all.

Burkas are rare in Canada. They totally obliterate the identity of the woman inside. The face is covered with a mesh grille, like a beekeeper’s hat.

But less rare is the niqab, which leaves a slit open for the eyes.

I've seen both niqab and burkas....the ones I've seen are also wearing loose-fitting clothes all the way to their toes. Now I don't know if they all come like that....but definitely the faces are covered. The niqab can be compared with a ski mask - only slits for the eyes can be seen.

Parka hood is similar to hijab...the face is still visible. I have no problem with the hijab.

But if your primary concern is of security matters, hiding explosives and so on....what difference could any of this make?

[betsy]

A guy wearing a trench coat can hide an Uzi in it. Are you proposing a ban of trench coats?

They got identified, weren't they? Because they got their faces exposed! That's the whole point!

I have no doubt it can be used that way, or any number of types of clothing can be used to conceal weapons or explosives. Do you honestly want to start banning every type of clothing that could theoretically or potentially be used in an attack of some kind?

It's not the same at all! Yes you can conceal weapons in trench coats but the perpetrators were identifiable! That is the problem with the niqab and the burka! You cannot determine any identity at all plus you can hide weapons/explosives in them.

[bloodyminded]

They got identified, weren't they? Because they got their faces exposed! That's the whole point!

Yes, and that identification helped...oh, wait, their shooting spree was over and they offed themselves. Identification irrelevant.

It's not the same at all! Yes you can conceal weapons in trench coats but the perpetrators were identifiable! That is the problem with the niqab and the burka! You cannot determine any identity at all plus you can hide weapons/explosives in them.

But as everyone has said, each and every time you and others bring up this point, is that we all think there are times and places when faces must be shown.

All of us.

We all say this.

Over and over.

So, now's the point where you will ask about security concerns, banks and so on.

Then we'll repeat the same thing; after which you'll pretend we didn't, and make the same already-answered point.

Edited August 4, 2010 by bloodyminded